13 Jul 2021
The Court stayed the order requiring a written apology and stayed the $3,000 compensation order pending the Court of Appeal because a public written apology is an irretrievable act that could render the appeal nugatory, while awarding the plaintiff costs and disbursements limited to work performed while he held a practising certificate and quantified the recoverable amounts.
15 Jun 2017
The Attorney-General conceded that the withholding of the two letters breached s14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; the Court entered a declaration to that effect and ordered public law compensation of $1500 to be paid to the Secretary for Justice under s17(1) of the Prisoners and Victims Claims Act 2005, with the remainder of the claim discontinued and no order as to costs.
7 Oct 2016
Leave to appeal was dismissed because Chapman governs and bars Crown liability for Bill of Rights breaches arising from judicial decisions; the differences identified by the applicant (ICCPR reservations and factual distinctions) did not provide a sufficient or appropriate basis to distinguish or revisit Chapman and there was insufficient prospect of success to grant leave.
13 Jul 2015
Leave to appeal was dismissed because, on the facts and legal findings of the lower courts, the warrants were technically deficient but supported by an evidential basis, the defects were not of sufficient gravity to raise issues of public or general importance or to show a miscarriage of justice, and therefore the Supreme Court would not grant leave.
13 Jul 2015
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the issues raised did not involve questions of public or general importance nor did they disclose an appearance of a miscarriage of justice; the lower courts' factual and legal findings that the warrants were technically deficient but supported by an evidential basis and produced only limited, trivial consequences were sound, and the presence of IPCA inquiries and police follow-up reduced the justification for public law compensation.
28 May 2014
The Court held that the EcoCare agreements (2005) and Modification 1 (2006) were entered into in breach of Part 6 and the s83 special consultative procedure of the Local Government Act and are unlawful; financing contracts accompanied by a s118 chief executive certificate constitute protected transactions enforceable by creditors notwithstanding underlying procedural illegality; the Kaipara Validation Act 2013 unequivocally validates the specified historical rates and assessments so the Court cannot declare those validated rates unlawful and the Act's removal of the ability to obtain effectiv…
16 Feb 2011
Extension of time was granted because delay caused no prejudice, but the appeal was dismissed on the merits because the Judge did not err: the appellant entered the settlement freely and advisedly, the Ministry substantially performed its obligations, and the appellant bore responsibility for on‑going access difficulties making the appeal meritless.
17 Aug 2010
The claim was struck out because it was untenable, vexatious and an abuse of process: the plaintiff failed to exhaust statutory remedies under the Legal Services Act, prior judicial determinations (including Asher J's decision) are definitive and preclusive, collateral attack on those decisions and on convictions is impermissible, and public law compensation cannot be founded on invalidity claims that are barred and abusive.
20 Feb 2009
Respondents were awarded costs on the 2B basis plus disbursements because the applicant's claims were wholly unsuccessful, the applicant failed to make submissions on costs, and the litigation involved multiple respondents and numerous interlocutory applications justifying the award.
9 Feb 2007
The Court struck out the claim for monetary compensation as legally untenable because judicial officers are immune absent bad faith or gross negligence and the Executive cannot be made liable in their stead; the amended statement of claim otherwise disclosed arguable grounds for judicial review of the refusals to grant adjournments and was permitted to proceed to substantive hearing.