New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Official information act 1982

Legal area

Court

18 May 2020

AR (India) v REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2020] NZHC 1025

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1025
Court

High Court

Permission to bring an originating application was refused because the application was moot or premature (the officer undertaking not to rely on the bank information and no decision yet made), alternative statutory and administrative remedies exist, and allowing the novel exercise of inherent jurisdiction would improperly encroach the comprehensive statutory appeal and review scheme in the Immigration Act and risk pre-emptive judicial review.
10 May 2018

NICOLAS ALFRED HAGER v HER MAJESTY’S ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2018] NZHC 1017

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1017
Court

High Court

The court concluded the Crown had undertaken a comprehensive review and filed a supplementary affidavit identifying further documents; there was a limited failure to disclose at least one job sheet but the breaches were not egregious and did not justify declarations of non-compliance or contempt; OIA/PA processes are separate and cannot be pre-empted by judicial review absent Ombudsman findings; the appropriate relief is case management directions to complete disclosure and preparation for the substantive trial rather than the sweeping declarations or sanctions sought by the applicant.
13 Oct 2015

KELSEY v THE MINISTER OF TRADE [2015] NZHC 2497

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2497
Court

High Court

The Minister's blanket refusal was unlawful because he failed to assess individually the information within the requested categories against the withholding criteria in the Official Information Act; the Minister's decision refusing Categories A, C, D, E, F and G is quashed and remitted for reconsideration in accordance with the Act and this judgment.
8 Apr 2013

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT V HOLMES HC DUN CIV-2012-412-000741

Citation

openlaw-f29b4cd2_f782_4718_becb_7b8db422094a.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that WINZ's 27 August 2010 reply was a mistaken but positive response based on a reasonable contextual interpretation and did not constitute a s40 refusal or breach of s38; the 4 October 2010 request was a late-answered breach admitted by WINZ and so liability for interference stands but the Tribunal's finding of sustained and systemic failure and its nationwide review order exceeded s85(1) remedial powers and was quashed; the damages award was excessive and reduced to NZD 2,000 for injury to feelings in respect of the 4 October request, and the NZD 10,000 award for the 22 Augu…

New Zealand Case Law

AR (India) v REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2020] NZHC 1025

NICOLAS ALFRED HAGER v HER MAJESTY’S ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2018] NZHC 1017

KELSEY v THE MINISTER OF TRADE [2015] NZHC 2497

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT V HOLMES HC DUN CIV-2012-412-000741