New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Scope of appeal

Legal area

Court

18 Oct 2023

WHANGAPOUA BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION v THAMES-COROMANDEL DISTRICT COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 2899

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2899
Court

High Court

The Environment Court erred in law by concluding it lacked jurisdiction to alter the mapping of Natural Character overlays despite having exercised s293 powers in Vernon to address Coastal Environment Line and Natural Character mapping; that jurisdictional error was material because failure to identify and map Natural Character areas could materially affect whether the Structure Plan gives effect to the NZCPS and Waikato RPS and whether adverse effects must be avoided; by contrast the Court correctly found it lacked jurisdiction to extend the ONFL mapping and did not err in its factual assess…
25 May 2022

WATSON v R [2022] NZCA 204

Citation

[2022] 3 NZLR 1
Court

Court of Appeal

A Governor-General reference under s 406(1)(a) authorises the Court to consider the conviction as an appeal of the whole case and does not confine the appellant to grounds specified in the reference; the Court retains power to exclude frivolous, vexatious or abusive grounds and recall remains an alternative exceptional remedy.
24 Aug 2021

GERTRUDE’S SADDLERY LIMITED v ARTHURS POINT OUTSTANDING NATURAL LANDSCAPE SOCIETY INCORPORATED [2021] NZCA 398

Citation

[2021] NZCA 398
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court refused leave for both second appeals: Dunningham J was correct that the scope of an appeal is defined by the notice of appeal and a s274 party cannot broaden that scope beyond the notice of appeal; Clark J was correct that a council's summary under Schedule 1 cl 7 must be fair, accurate and not misleading in describing the decisions requested by submitters. Neither application raised a question of law of general or public importance or a seriously arguable point warranting leave to appeal.
17 Dec 2020

GERTRUDE’S SADDLERY LIMITED v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 3387

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3387
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Environment Court erred in law by relying on the breadth of Upper Clutha's original submission rather than the narrower relief in its notice of appeal and by taking an irrelevant fairness consideration into account; the Upper Clutha appeal did not validly raise deletion of the ONL boundary around the Shotover Loop nor did it seek rezoning/UGB alteration as a reasonably foreseeable logical consequence, therefore the Environment Court's decision allowing the Society to pursue those matters under its s274 notice was set aside.
8 May 2018

NGĀI TAI KI TĀMAKI TRIBAL TRUST v MINISTER OF CONSERVATION [2018] NZSC 41

Citation

[2018] NZSC 41
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was granted because the appeal raised an arguable and sufficiently important question whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant's appeal, and the issue warranted consideration by the Supreme Court.
5 Feb 2018

KIM DOTCOM v THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [2018] NZCA 5

Citation

[2018] NZCA 5
Court

Court of Appeal

The application to amend and to recall the minute to join the appeals was dismissed because the applicant did not show a risk of injustice or sufficient justification for joinder, the proposed amendments were inapt and potentially beyond the Court's jurisdiction as the issues were not before the lower judge, and joinder was not shown to be more efficient given the controversial scope of CA12/2018.
28 Jul 2016

FRANCISC CATALIN DELIU v BOON GUNN HONG [2016] NZSC 93

Citation

[2016] NZSC 93
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave is dismissed because the Court of Appeal was entitled to address the broader issue in the interests of justice after putting the appellant on notice, and it correctly held that an abiding memorandum does not automatically preclude costs though it may justify a reduction; no miscarriage of justice arose and there was no improper interference with the High Court's discretion.
1 Apr 2016

Haythorne v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 83
Court

District Court

The judge ruled that the appellant cannot proceed on grounds seeking to relitigate or rely on alleged injuries from the 2000 motor accident already determined against her in the 2003 review decision; the respondent’s preliminary submission is accepted and the appeal is limited to issues arising from the respondent’s relevant 2012 and 2013 decisions without reopening the 2003 finding; if the appellant wishes to revisit 2003 she must seek a late review.
11 Aug 2015

CREQUER v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CA414/2015 [2015] NZCA 365

Citation

[2015] NZCA 365
Court

Court of Appeal

The Deputy Registrar did not err in refusing the fee waiver because the questions raised did not concern matters of significant public interest but rather the appellant's particular factual dispute; the High Court rightly held the SSAA Chair may properly narrow and frame a case stated, and there was no basis to impeach the case stated or the procedure followed.
22 May 2015

Williams v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 116
Court

District Court

There was insufficient objective medical evidence to establish that the 17 September 2008 accident caused a fracture or other injury which was wholly or substantially causative of the fifth toe amputation; the appellant's diabetic history, prior amputations, radiological findings and expert opinions indicated a disease process was the more probable cause, so the reviewer was correct and the appeal is dismissed.