New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Natural justice / procedural fairness

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2022

MADSEN-RIES AND LEVIN AS LIQUIDATORS OF SALUS SAFETY EQUIPMENT LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v SALUS SAFETY EQUIPMENT LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2022] NZCA 101

Citation

[2022] NZCA 101
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held that while the Roslea Path streamlined procedure and the inquisitorial nature of retrospective fee approvals limit the occasions on which an oral hearing or extensive disclosure is required, the Associate Judge breached natural justice in respect of specific, significant adverse findings he failed to forewarn the liquidators about (use of the term 'padding' and certain efficiency and charging conclusions, and unanticipated criticism of litigation complexity and administrative charging). The appeals were allowed, the High Court judgments set aside, and the applications…
27 Oct 2020

JOLLY v CENTRAL OTAGO DISTRICT COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 2808

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2808
Court

High Court

Because the Commissioner’s process was complete, the late introduction of a compromise on Jolly Road sealing deprived the Trust of an opportunity to be heard and the evidence demonstrated that there was effectively no other lawful decision the Commissioner could have made consistent with proper procedural fairness and mitigation of dust, and because remitting would be impractical and the parties consented, the High Court may and should substitute its decision by consent to amend conditions 4A and 4B to extend sealing to the specified point.
28 Jun 2019

HENRY v THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE [2019] NZHC 1493

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1493
Court

High Court

No unambiguous promise existed that later EOIs would not be considered; extension/re-advertising was a justified exercise to broaden the candidate pool and did not frustrate a legitimate expectation entitling applicant to relief; statements that applicant 'remained under consideration' were misleading in form but not legally sufficient to establish a breach warranting relief in context; s29(2)(b) is a mandatory relevant consideration for the Minister but did not require explicit instruction to the advisory panel and does not create a private law cause of action; NZBORA s27 claim fails as no b…
5 Aug 2011

TE TAI TOKERAU MAPO TRUST V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF MINISTRY OF HEALTH HC WHA CIV-2010-488-307

Citation

openlaw-41ecde5c_47b1_4cd5_b38d_66bd05402864.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held that the substance of the dispute was contractual: the 28 April 2009 agreement (and prior signed extensions) expressly provided that if no new contract was finalised by the cut-off date all contracting would end; therefore the cessation of funding was the agreed contractual consequence and the impugned matters were not amenable to judicial review on the pleaded grounds; the plaintiff's claims of breach of contract, breach of natural justice, ultra vires and breach of legitimate expectation were not made out and the proceeding was dismissed.
13 Jun 2011

SIMES V LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY HC HAM CIV 2010-419-000006

Citation

openlaw-7c081a93_2424_4a36_97ad_92ad90984ded.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found both Panels failed to take into account a material and relevant consideration—the Agency-commissioned audit report—and the Review Panel breached natural justice by relying on unspecified comparator cancellation decisions without disclosing them or allowing the plaintiff to respond; those defects required remittal to the Review Panel for reconsideration. Other challenges (interpretation of s24 LC Act and Part 13, legitimate expectation, most natural justice complaints, and unreasonableness) were dismissed on the facts or law, including that statutory cancellation under the Lega…
3 Apr 2008

WALSH & ORS V PHARMAC AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2007-485-1386

Citation

openlaw-934e7eac_8af8_48f1_a381_095abc68fff2.pdf
Court

High Court

The Board's 26 July 2006 resolution declining Roche's application for 12 months adjuvant Herceptin was set aside for failure to consult as required by s49 in the circumstances; PHARMAC must re‑consult and reconsider the Roche application afresh. Challenges to the April 2007 Board decision to fund a 9‑week regimen and to the CaEC refusals were dismissed because those processes were lawful, involved adequate consultation for their scope, and the CaEC scheme and reviews were not biased or ultra vires.
15 Feb 2008

LAYWOOD & ANOR V HOLMES CONSTRUCTION WELLINGTON LIMITED HC AK CIV 2006-404-4152

Citation

openlaw-b17c0531_9364_45fc_81dd_4254ee2f0a63.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted because the questions raised about the Construction Contracts Act enforcement procedure, particularly whether a full hearing is required before an adjudicator's determination is entered as judgment, are matters of public importance and capable of serious argument and had not been the subject of appellate consideration; costs were fixed but payment was reserved.
1 Nov 2007

HOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION V THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND & BRADBURN HC AK CIV 2006-404-7184

Citation

openlaw-337f7bb2_fafc_4178_87ea_f3b814a91c27.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 43(4) confers a broad discretion to set a rent lower than market or income-related rent where special circumstances justify it; Housing New Zealand must consider the exercise of that discretion when special circumstances are raised by a tenant and must notify tenants of the existence of the discretion (and give opportunity to apply) before calculating income-related rent, but HNZ is not obliged to consider special circumstances in every income-related rent application absent a claim; the District Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal where Housing New Zealand failed to turn its min…
26 May 2005

ELECTRICITY CORPORATION OF NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V NEW ZEALAND ELECTRICITY EXCHANGE LIMITED AND ORS CA CA159/04

Citation

openlaw-1ad4256b_0d03_4084_9afc_879342ceda25.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

ECNZ failed to show good reason to bypass the NZEM dispute resolution process; exclusion from the earlier breach hearing and the MSC's prior administrative involvement did not demonstrate a breach of natural justice or such predetermination or unfairness as to make the agreed forum unworkable; the stay was therefore properly granted and is upheld.