New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural error

Legal area

Court

30 Aug 2022

THE NEW ZEALAND ANIMAL LAW ASSOCIATION v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (COSTS) [2022] NZHC 2192

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2192
Court

High Court

The third respondent was properly joined because the applicants' pleadings directly impugned rodeo activities; applicants achieved only limited procedural success based on established authority and so costs should not lie where they fall in full; public interest and charity status warranted a 30% reduction of the third respondent's claimed costs; costs for second counsel were disallowed absent justificatory reasons; resulting award to NZRCA is $12,222.13 inclusive of disbursements.
6 Jul 2022

DYER v R [2022] NZCA 296

Citation

[2022] NZCA 296
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court granted the recall because Corrections' administrative error caused the applicant to serve four weeks of home detention after bail had been granted and after the appeal was heard, creating a material injustice; accordingly the Court recalled its prior judgment and reduced the substituted community work from 250 hours to 100 hours while leaving the 12 months' supervision intact.
31 Jan 2020

TARGET PAINTERS & DECORATORS LIMITED v FEHL [2020] NZHC 45

Citation

[2020] NZHC 45
Court

High Court

The applicant pursued an unnecessary procedural step that lacked merit and failed to admit facts or accept legal arguments; although the procedural error was not substantive and had no prospect of success, it warranted an uplift in costs. The court awarded costs to the second respondent on scale 2B increased by 25 percent, and directed that if quantum cannot be agreed it be fixed by the registrar.
24 Oct 2019

ERICSON v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2019] NZHC 2728

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2728
Court

High Court

Habeas corpus was dismissed because the applicant's custody is pursuant to a Parole Board recall order that has been reviewed by the Board's chairperson and affirmed by the High Court; any procedural error in who initiated the recall application does not afford a basis for habeas corpus to release the applicant.
25 Mar 2019

JONES v R [2019] NZCA 66

Citation

[2019] NZCA 66
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to revisit the appeal is refused because the Smith exceptional‑circumstances threshold is not met: counsel made a reasonable tactical decision to focus on the conviction appeal (the most realistic route to displacing the MPI), there was no fundamental procedural error by the Court, no miscarriage of justice demonstrated, and no alternative remedy was shown.
13 Dec 2018

ACC v HAMAL TERRY [2018] NZCA 585

Citation

[2018] NZCA 585
Court

Court of Appeal

When ACC, in a retrospective claim, determines a claimant was incapacitated for a past period but is no longer incapacitated as at the date of decision, ACC's obligation to assess and provide vocational rehabilitation under the Act ceases; the High Court erred in holding that retrospective acceptance of weekly compensation automatically obliges ACC to update the rehabilitation plan and follow vocational rehabilitation procedures before determining incapacity had ended.
17 Mar 2015

DELIU v HONG & ANOTHER [2015] NZHC 492

Citation

[2015] NZHC 492
Court

High Court

The High Court quashed the Tribunal's decision and remitted the charge because the Tribunal proceeded on a mistake of fact (incorrectly treating the charge as the respondent's sole prior disciplinary indiscretion) and erred in law by failing to consider or exercise its statutory power under reg 24 to amend or add alternative charges (including under s12(c) or s7(1)(a)), such failures amounted to reviewable error warranting quashing and remittal for reconsideration.
12 May 2010

PHILIP THOMAS JAGGER V VICKI SHEREE SPENCER HC AK CIV-2009-404-7625

Citation

openlaw-9874d892_94da_4098_9afe_956f40d54595.pdf
Court

High Court

Because Judge Walker approached the proceedings on an incorrect basis (treating them as appeals against Inland Revenue assessments) the High Court should not decide the substantive issues as a court of first instance; the appeal was therefore allowed by consent and the matter remitted to the North Shore Family Court for re-hearing, with existing orders to remain and no costs ordered in this Court.
29 Nov 2006

GORDON V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-004417

Citation

openlaw-c03dcb37_24f4_4cc3_b29f_f8ac9a9f8f6a.pdf
Court

High Court

The Council's processing wrongly treated the road and front façade criteria in the Operative Isthmus Plan as non-applicable and failed to have regard to the frontage/façade criterion in PPM 163; 'façade' must be interpreted purposively to include all parts of the building visible from the road/front (including visible roof elements), those failures were errors of law and the Operative Plan errors were sufficiently material to quash the resource consent and remit the matter for reconsideration in light of the correct interpretation.