New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Recusal and bias

Legal area

Court

29 Aug 2023

D v N [2023] NZHC 2366

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2366
Court

High Court

The High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear interlocutory or interim appeals without Family Court leave under s143(3) COCA; where leave had not been obtained those appeal notices were nullities. On the substantive appeal that was properly before the Court, dismissal of Ms D's application for day-to-day care under s140 was justified because continuation of proceedings had no realistic prospect of success and was clearly contrary to the children's welfare and best interests; transfer to the High Court was not warranted and recusal allegations were without merit.
13 Dec 2022

DELIU v THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2022] NZHC 3389

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3389
Court

High Court

The High Court held the District Court breached s 27 BORA by taking an unreasonable 19 months to determine the applicant's 16 July 2020 reconsideration request and granted a declaratory remedy; all other causes of action (including claims of ex parte breach, error of law about emailing, recusal, corruption, bias, conflict, failure of reasons and unreasonableness of refusing emailed copies) were dismissed because the Access Rules permit supervised inspection, the District Court and judges acted within their powers, delay was an oversight, and recusal/bias/corruption claims lacked substantive b…
18 Mar 2020

RONGOTAI INVESTMENTS LIMITED v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 543

Citation

[2020] NZHC 543
Court

High Court

The Court will hear the judicial review and the related appeals together (with the same judge presiding alongside lay members for the appeals and then alone for the JR) because the substantial overlap in evidence, reduced duplication, and the ability to assess alleged procedural improprieties in full context outweigh concerns about prejudice; case management directions and a six-day fixture are ordered to enable a prompt consolidated hearing.
12 Sept 2016

NR v MR [2016] NZCA 430

Citation

[2016] NZCA 430
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the recusal appeals as without substance and largely moot, refused further evidence as irrelevant, upheld the judicial review dismissal of the District Court's indemnity costs (except for a small GST adjustment), allowed in part the appeal on Andrews J's costs decision by disallowing recovery for second counsel, and ordered NR to pay respondent costs of 40% of a standard band A appeal plus disbursements; a permanent publication prohibition was made.
25 Nov 2009

SNOWDON V RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED CA CA318/2009

Citation

openlaw-d8fb1c28_5d19_47a8_8282_1360b86fe498.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was granted because there is an issue of law of general and public importance whether the Employment Court should, by analogy, adopt the High Court Rules approach to assessing costs (daily recovery rates rather than actual costs) and whether allegations of fraud affect entitlement to costs; appeal hearing deferred until fraud allegations are resolved in the Employment Court.
11 Jul 2008

WIKIO AND ANOR V ATTORNEY GENERAL HC WN CIV 2004-485-2198

Citation

openlaw-9d4622fb_0406_4963_8ecc_527c5feaf5a8.pdf
Court

High Court

The judge must not recuse where the alleged grounds arise solely from the judge's institutional role rather than a personal or direct financial interest; receipt or prospect of Higher Duties Allowance or status under a defined contribution superannuation scheme are speculative or institutional matters not amounting to automatic disqualification, and do not meet the fair‑minded lay‑observer test for reasonable apprehension of bias; further discovery was refused as late, unnecessary to the issues before the Court and failing relevance/necessity requirements, with privilege issues left undecided.

New Zealand Case Law

D v N [2023] NZHC 2366

DELIU v THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2022] NZHC 3389

RONGOTAI INVESTMENTS LIMITED v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 543

NR v MR [2016] NZCA 430

SNOWDON V RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED CA CA318/2009

WIKIO AND ANOR V ATTORNEY GENERAL HC WN CIV 2004-485-2198