New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Parens patriae jurisdiction

  • 5 Dec 2017

    L v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY FOR VULNERABLE CHILDREN, ORANGA TAMARIKI [2017] NZHC 3008

    Citation
    [2017] NZHC 3008
    Court
    High Court

    The s78 custody order expired on determination of the s67 declaration on 30 October 2017 so the child's detention was unlawful; the Family Court could not validly use the slip rule to make a substantive continuation of s78 custody without proper process; given the paramountcy of the child's welfare and relevant authorities the High Court should transfer the habeas corpus application to the Family Court under s13(2) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 and may, in the interim, exercise its parens patriae jurisdiction to maintain existing custody arrangements pending Family Court determination.

    • Habeas corpus
    • Oranga tamariki act s67 and s78 custody orders
    • Parens patriae jurisdiction
    • Slip rule/correction of judgments
    • Transfer to family court under s13(2) habeas corpus act 2001

  • 21 Feb 2017

    OLSSON v CULPAN [2017] NZHC 215

    Citation
    [2017] NZHC 215
    Court
    High Court

    The applicant was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus requiring the respondent to deliver the two children to her and the Court, exercising powers under the Care of Children Act 2004 (or alternatively parens patriae), properly made consent orders implementing a detailed memorandum of arrangements for the children’s immediate welfare; costs were reserved with specified filing timelines.

    • Child custody
    • Return of children
    • Care of children act 2004 orders
    • Parens patriae jurisdiction
    • Consent memorandum

  • 30 Jun 2015

    IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KIM DOREEN VASEY [2015] NZHC 1491

    Citation
    [2015] NZHC 1491
    Court
    High Court

    The Court granted approval under s66 (and indicated inherent parens patriae power) for the trustees to settle the minor beneficiary's potential entitlement by setting aside $75,000 on specified terms because the compromise reasonably balances the minor's likely entitlement and risks (including costs, increased debts, and competing claims) and avoids litigation disproportionate to the estate's value; provisional view was that clause 5.4 likely included both the separate $140,000 and half the remaining equity but a full hearing was unnecessary to approve the settlement.

    • Trustee act s66
    • Intestacy and administration act s77
    • Property sharing agreement
    • Settlement approval for minor beneficiary
    • Parens patriae jurisdiction
    • Potential family protection and property (relationships) act claims

  • 30 Apr 2014

    CARRINGTON v CARRINGTON [2014] NZHC 869

    Citation
    (2014) 22 PRNZ 43
    Court
    High Court

    Where issues fall squarely within the PPPRA the Family Court has original jurisdiction and statutory remedies must be exhausted; the High Court's Declaratory Judgments Act jurisdiction and parens patriae/inherent jurisdiction are residual and complementary and cannot be used to determine the validity of a will inter vivos or to pre-empt Family Court PPPRA processes; accordingly the originating application seeking declarations/orders in respect of the respondent's 2011 will, enduring powers of attorney and capacity to commence Family Court proceedings was struck out.

    • Parens patriae jurisdiction
    • Declaratory judgments act 1908
    • Protection of personal and property rights act 1988 (pppra)
    • Enduring power of attorney
    • Testamentary capacity
    • Jurisdictional limits

  • 27 Aug 2007

    HAWTHORNE V COX AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-7390

    Citation
    openlaw-404989f8_740a_4fee_9757_a9df4e8ad644.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    Leave for the lawyer to apply without notice was permissibly made given the lawyer's role and lack of prejudice, but the substantive guardianship order was set aside because the evidence did not meet the protective threshold required to place a 16 year old under court guardianship; a 16 year old is presumptively mature and court guardianship is a protective remedy to be invoked only when necessary.

    • Care of children act 2004
    • Court guardianship
    • Leave to apply without notice
    • Removal of guardians
    • Parens patriae jurisdiction
    • Maturity of 16–18 year olds