New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remedies and relief

Legal area

Court

28 Nov 2018

VECTOR LTD v UTILITIES DISPUTES COMMISSIONER & ORS [2018] NZHC 3096

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3096
Court

High Court

The Court quashed the Commissioner's decisions because she materially erred in law by imposing a novel tortious duty of care without proper legal foundation and without adequately considering highly relevant factors (the contractual limitation/exclusion regime, the true nature of claimed losses, and the regulatory context), and because the evidential basis was insufficient for some negligence and causation findings; the matters are remitted to the Commissioner for reconsideration and payments made under the impugned decisions must be repaid with interest.
30 Jun 2017

VIPASSANA FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST BOARD v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 1492

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1492
Court

High Court

The certificate of compliance was flawed procedurally but because the errors were minor or mitigated by undertakings and the applicants acted in good faith, the proper remedy was to direct the Auckland Council to reconsider the decision under s 139 RMA while leaving the certificate in effect pending that reconsideration pursuant to s 4(5C) Judicature Amendment Act 1972; reconsideration must be on the basis of the planning instruments at the date of the application.
12 Apr 2016

THE INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v THE NEW ZEALAND QUALIFICATION AUTHORITY [2016] NZHC 640

Citation

[2016] NZHC 640
Court

High Court

The Court set aside the 2 October 2015 EER final report for material procedural shortcomings and directed that the 2014 EER continue to completion under a new independent lead evaluator and a review team independent of the original team; the new evaluator must produce a fresh first report using the original evidence and additional material identified, may interview 2014 staff and obtain factual assistance from original reviewers (but not their evaluative judgments), and the review must otherwise follow the Authority's Policy and Guidelines.
12 Aug 2015

FLAVELL v WAITANGI TRIBUNAL [2015] NZHC 1907

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1907
Court

High Court

Court held the Tribunal erred in law by effectively treating binding recommendations as a remedy of last resort (imposing an additional onus) and by failing to consider making binding recommendations in respect of parts only of the lands sought; other alleged errors were dismissed; relief was discretionary and the Court deferred orders to allow applicant to elect whether to seek reconsideration by the Tribunal in light of this judgment.
7 Nov 2014

HARICOT INVESTMENTS LIMITED v MAEREWHENUA DISTRICT WATER RESOURCE COMPANY LIMITED [2014] NZHC 2781

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2781
Court

High Court

The Court held that most challenged corporate actions were within the powers of the company and not oppressive, but clause 14.4 of the Water Supply Agreement (a broad indemnity expanding liabilities beyond the Memorandum of Encumbrance) was unfairly prejudicial; Haricot is not obliged to sign a Water Supply Agreement containing that clause and relief granted limited to deletion or replacement of cl 14.4 to make liability co-extensive with existing obligations under the Memorandum of Encumbrance; other remedies were unnecessary because defective redemption was rescinded and other complaints fa…
30 Apr 2009

GXL ROYALTIES LIMITED V THE MINISTER OF ENERGY FOR NEW ZEALAND HC WN CIV-2008-485-1720

Citation

openlaw-667a4a84_4a4d_4648_a420_c6fd00addcca.pdf
Court

High Court

The 3 June 2008 email from a Crown official created a legitimate expectation that the Minister would advise and consult GXL before departing from the position that the application would not be processed without GXL's consent; however the Minister correctly treated GXL's withholding of contractual consent as a private contractual matter not constituting 'special circumstances' under s41(3) and properly assessed Crown minerals management matters when consenting; despite finding a legitimate expectation breach in procedure, the Court exercised discretion to refuse relief because quashing the dec…
20 Nov 2008

SHANE ROBERT CHRISTOPHER GAGE V THE WELLINGTON DISTRICT MAORI COUNCIL AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2008-485-316

Citation

openlaw-53220fa3_b5cf_49c6_b200_b85b8ea1e577.pdf
Court

High Court

The advertised Stokes Valley election of 21 March 2006 was valid and authorised nomination of District representatives; the subsequent unadvertised alternative election was invalid; the expulsion under s22(a) lacked procedural fairness (no adequate notice or opportunity to be heard) and is quashed; invalidating the District Executive was unnecessary and disproportionate.
13 Feb 2006

SAWMILL WORKERS AGAINST POISONS INC AND ANOR V WHAKATANE DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ORS HC ROT CIV 2006-463-32

Citation

openlaw-c8e615cc_dddf_4445_8eb3_16eef68cb977.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that allegations of illegitimate sub-delegation and rubber-stamping were not established, but the Regional Council's non-notification decision was legally flawed on 23 December 2005 because the information before it was not adequately comprehensive or reliable concerning sample collection methodology and the risk of contaminant migration. Despite that error, the Court exercised its discretion to refuse relief because an independent expert (Dr Graham) concluded adverse effects were likely minor, monitoring and consent conditions mitigated risk, the activity was temporary, and gr…