New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Review of judicial discretion

Legal area

Court

20 Jun 2019

R v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 1428

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1428
Court

High Court

The High Court found the District Court Judge was plainly wrong to assess the appellant as posing a high risk to the sexual safety of children because that conclusion conflicted with the psychologist's low-to-low-moderate risk assessment, family testimony, absence of prior offending, appellant's age and health, and inadequate application of the s 9(3) factors; consequently the registration order was quashed.
12 Feb 2013

HANNAY V MOUNT HC NEL CIV-2010-442-000507

Citation

openlaw-75fb68b3_f085_4cc2_8909_058ae3e1c6e1.pdf
Court

High Court

Associate Judge Matthews was correct to award costs to plaintiffs for defective discovery and for the needless strike-out application given defendants' failures to comply with discovery; however the Associate Judge erred in principle by applying the maximum 50% uplift without adequate explanation, and the appropriate uplift for the strike-out-related costs is 25%. The standard of review is that the defendants must show the Associate Judge was plainly wrong or erred in principle, which they did not except in relation to the unexplained quantum of uplift.