New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

No case to answer

Legal area

Court

8 Mar 2021

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v PARORE [2021] NZHC 420

Citation

[2021] NZHC 420
Court

High Court

The trial judge erred in law by treating contested evidence as substantively insufficient at the close of the prosecution case rather than assessing whether there was some evidence capable of supporting the essential element of intentional evasion; that legal error undermined the integrity of the acquittal and resulted in a miscarriage of justice, warranting a new trial of the dismissed charges on the prosecution evidence.
22 Dec 2020

PAROLI v POLICE [2020] NZHC 3492

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3492
Court

High Court

The conviction was unsafe and was quashed because the trial judge materially erred by overlooking that the appellant lacked present ability to carry out the alleged running‑over threat (due to vehicle orientation/direction of travel), and that error undermined the necessary inference that the appellant intended his words to be taken seriously as a threat to intimidate or to frighten the complainant; consequently the conviction could not stand and an acquittal was entered.
21 Aug 2014

ORLOV v THE NZ LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2014] NZHC 1987

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1987
Court

High Court

The High Court held the late amendments to reframe the charges as allegations that statements were false or made without sufficient foundation were legally appropriate and, despite procedural defects, caused no substantial prejudice; the Disciplinary Tribunal properly admitted and weighed documentary and witness material under s239; absolute privilege for defamation did not immunise the applicant from professional discipline; freedom of expression is a relevant mitigating factor but does not protect unfounded, extreme allegations by a lawyer about a judge; the convictions on the amended s7(1)…
18 Apr 2013

HALL V WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE (NO. 2) HC WN CIV-2012-404-2608

Citation

openlaw-7fcb9eaf_90e9_4c5b_8812_a47a760b7eff.pdf
Court

High Court

The Tribunal applied an incorrect 'strike out' test rather than assessing whether the evidence before it established a prima facie case on the elements of the charge; because the Tribunal misdirected itself and a correct substantive determination was not made, the Tribunal's finding that there was a case to answer is set aside and the matter is remitted to a newly constituted disciplinary tribunal to determine the issues and preserve appeal rights.
16 Jul 2012

HALL V WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE HC WN CIV-2012-404-002608

Citation

openlaw-9a6484fa_b7f8_4c4d_9fd0_03e37edab9ae.pdf
Court

High Court

The Tribunal's determination that the practitioner had a case to answer was a concluded judicial decision within the ordinary meaning of 'decision' in s 253(1) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 and therefore appealable to the High Court; Siemer v Heron establishes that interlocutory appeals are not to be narrowly excluded by judicially reading down broad statutory language, so the strike out application fails and the appeal proceeds.
10 Jun 2009

URS NEW ZEALAND LTD AND ANOR V THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2009-404-3054

Citation

openlaw-30b4a610_3d64_4ecd_9928_3ff9c9c7be6d.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the review application: as a matter of supervisory discretion and statutory design, judicial review should not be used to challenge a District Court Judge's non‑determinative refusal of a no case to answer submission in the summary jurisdiction where appeal routes exist; alternatively, Judge McElrea did not err in law — s15 does not require proof of control at the time of discharge and causation is a factual common‑sense inquiry such that prior acts or omissions can constitute operative causes and intervening acts do not automatically break the causal chain.
16 Feb 2007

GRIFFIN V GISBORNE DISTRICT COUNCIL HC GIS CIV 2006-416-000021

Citation

openlaw-86fe5385_5dbe_4fb6_bcf5_0ab4532d0581.pdf
Court

High Court

The Justices of the Peace had no jurisdiction to hear a charge under s57 Dog Control Act 1996; that jurisdictional defect rendered the hearing and resulting conviction a nullity and required the High Court to quash the conviction and associated orders rather than rehear the matter.
26 Oct 2006

MISS ALICE (PREVIOUSLY ROBERT ALEXANDER MOODIE) V ROBERT LITHGOW HC WN CIV-2006-485-001732

Citation

openlaw-dfb833f3_b540_47d8_abc4_a3a3c41c599c.pdf
Court

High Court

Because all contempt allegations were devoid of substance and failed at the preliminary stage, costs follow the event; contempt proceedings are to be assessed by reference to the High Court Rules with allowance for their hybrid character; applying categories 2B for directions conferences and 3 for preparation and hearing, the judge exercised discretion to award $7,500 to each successful respondent.
1 Sept 2006

R A MOODIE V R LITHGOW AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2006-485-001732

Citation

openlaw-51aa72e5_3123_41b2_be59_23ae15744f6c.pdf
Court

High Court

The October 11, 2005 minute was advisory and did not constitute a clear, unambiguous court order forbidding internal disclosure; on the evidence no respondent wilfully or contumaciously breached any enforceable court direction; the Solicitor-General acted within his authority under s9A and constitutional convention; the amici's conduct did not amount to contempt; therefore there is no case to answer and the contempt allegations against all four respondents are dismissed.