New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Relevant and irrelevant considerations

Legal area

Court

20 Jan 2023

PELIKANI v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2023] NZHC 21

Citation

[2023] NZHC 21
Court

High Court

Corrections law requires consideration of s62(3) factors; while gang membership alone is not a relevant basis to refuse removal, the combination of the applicant's gang associations, a historical assault on staff and his placement on PERD disclosed a potential risk and were relevant considerations properly taken into account; procedural delays and limited disclosure were unfortunate but did not render the decision unlawful; accordingly the judicial review application fails.
24 Aug 2022

STUDENTS FOR CLIMATE SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED v THE MINISTER OF ENERGY AND RESOURCES [2022] NZHC 2116

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2116
Court

High Court

On a correct construction of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 and its minerals programme the Act's purpose is to promote prospecting, exploration and mining and climate change targets and budgets are not mandatory relevant considerations for decisions under s 25; s 5ZN CCRA merely permits (does not compel) consideration of 2050 targets and budgets and cannot convert irrelevant matters into mandatory considerations; Treaty principles under s 4 may make climate issues indirectly relevant but no Treaty breach or inadequate engagement was established in this case, therefore the judicial review applica…
16 Jun 2021

ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v MINISTER OF FISHERIES [2021] NZHC 1427

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1427
Court

High Court

The Court held the Minister erred in law by failing to identify and assess the period appropriate to the East Coast tarakihi stock under s 13(2)(b)(ii) before applying social, cultural and economic factors to determine way and rate; the Minister also failed to have regard to the HSS guidance on acceptable rebuild probability (70%) and took into account an irrelevant consideration (the Industry Rebuild Plan) in determining the period appropriate to the stock; however adopting measures modelled at approximately a 50% probability was not, in itself, held to be unlawful.
22 Mar 2019

STAN SEMENOFF LOGGING LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY [2019] NZHC 541

Citation

[2019] NZHC 541
Court

High Court

The Court held the judicial review challenge was arguable and that interim relief was necessary to preserve the applicant's position; s106(3) did not preclude the Court from granting interim relief in judicial review. Balancing public safety against irreparable harm, the Court suspended the coming-into-force of the revocation pending further order, subject to conditions designed to mitigate safety risks (daily log checks, weekly evidence provision, 24-hour notification of breaches and speeding events), and reserved leave for NZTA to return to Court on breaches.
2 Jul 2015

CHARTER HOLDINGS LIMITED v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2015] NZHC 1506 [1 July 2015]

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1506
Court

High Court

Leave to cross-examine was refused because the deponent's affidavit and voluminous exhibits adequately explained the decision-making process, the evidential record was sufficient for the Court to determine the judicial review grounds, cross-examination would risk a fishing expedition and unwarranted merits review, and the interests of justice did not require departing from the presumption against cross-examination.
5 Mar 2015

MARY MOODIE FAMILY TRUST BOARD (INC) v ATTORNEY-GENERAL IN RESPECT OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH [2015] NZHC 365

Citation

[2015] NZAR 379
Court

High Court

The Court held the Ministry's decision to terminate the provider agreement was not amenable to judicial review in the absence of proven fraud, corruption or bad faith because the relationship was governed by contract and no statutory or public-law matrix extended reviewability; the Trust failed to plead or prove bad faith and, on the merits, its public-law grounds (mistake of fact, natural justice, legitimate expectation, irrelevant/relevant considerations and unreasonableness) were not made out.
8 Apr 2014

CLUBS NZ INC v MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND THE MINISTER OF HEALTH [2014] NZHC 679

Citation

[2014] NZHC 679
Court

High Court

The court held that IRD's inability to implement a split levy was a relevant and admissible consideration for the Ministry, Gambling Commission and Ministers, that reliance on the recent problem‑presentation statistics complied with the statutory requirement to use the latest reliable data, and that no duty to reconsult arose in respect of the six‑month 2012‑13 figures; therefore the challenge failed and the application for review was dismissed.
4 Aug 2011

SIEMER v OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE and ANOR HC AK CIV-2010-404-001709

Citation

openlaw-d14d586d_21ea_4520_b47c_9fe3f16bff3d.pdf
Court

High Court

Application for leave to cross-examine was declined because the applicant failed to meet the high threshold that cross-examination was clearly necessary for a fair disposal; contemporaneous reasons (the Official Assignee's letter of 4 March 2010) and the applicant's rebuttal material could be used to decide the review, alternatives (interrogatories and reply affidavits) had not been exhausted, there was no direct evidence of actual bias warranting cross-examination, and contested affidavit material included inadmissible or argumentative material which did not justify exceptional cross-examina…