New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Predetermination/bias

Legal area

Court

17 Sept 2013

HAMPTON v CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2013] NZHC 2433

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2433
Court

High Court

The court held CRC110662 did not unlawfully derogate from CRC042233.3 because it is a back-stop consent exercisable only when the primary consent is not being used; the council lawfully considered the effects, correctly declined to notify the applicant as he was not an affected party, claims regarding transfer and interference were premature, and there was no bias or predetermination; the judicial review application was dismissed.
25 Jul 2007

FRIENDS OF TURITEA RESERVE SOCIETY INCORPORATED V PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL HC PMN CIV-2006-454-879

Citation

openlaw-e30a1964_a7ac_4294_9855_94bb540e8829.pdf
Court

High Court

A local authority may lawfully add 'renewable electricity generation' as a purpose of a local purpose reserve where the activity bears a sufficient local nexus and revenue will be applied to reserve purposes; contracting with a private or state-owned generator does not automatically constitute an unlawful fettering of statutory discretion or bias where the council retains and exercises its statutory decision-making responsibilities honestly and with minds not closed; the consultation carried out satisfied statutory and common law requirements given the stage of decision-making and the need fo…
18 Sept 2006

WHANGAMATA MARINA SOCIETY INC V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND HC WN CIV 2006-485-000709 18 SEPTEMBER 200 18 SEPTEMBER 200

Citation

HC WN CIV 2006-485-000709 18 SEPTEMBER 200
Court

High Court

The Minister exceeded his lawful role under s119 by re-evaluating contested evidence and effectively testing factual matters that Parliament assigned to adversarial hearing processes; the Minister also breached procedural fairness by conducting an inadequate, late reconsideration based on incomplete material and by holding site meetings whose content he could not simply disregard; accordingly the decision was set aside and remitted for reconsideration complying with s119(3)-(4) and natural justice requirements.
15 Mar 2006

GIBBS V THE NEW PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COUNCIL HC NWP CIV 2004-443-115

Citation

openlaw-bbc53b04_0376_44d2_8d1a_8169a18cf7be.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for judicial review is dismissed because the Council did not act with actual or apparent bias, its formation of the predictive opinion under s73(3) that the bach sites were not likely to be used for recreation in the relevant term was open on the evidence and legally permissible, the decision complied with the statutory consultation and Schedule 1 safeguards (including termination rights and public access provisions), and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable or otherwise unlawful.

New Zealand Case Law

HAMPTON v CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2013] NZHC 2433

FRIENDS OF TURITEA RESERVE SOCIETY INCORPORATED V PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL HC PMN CIV-2006-454-879

WHANGAMATA MARINA SOCIETY INC V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND HC WN CIV 2006-485-000709 18 SEPTEMBER 200 18 SEPTEMBER 200

GIBBS V THE NEW PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COUNCIL HC NWP CIV 2004-443-115