New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Standard of review

Legal area

Court

30 Nov 2023

ROSANNE ARMITAGE v STYLO MEDICAL SERVICES LIMITED [2023] NZSC 155

Citation

[2023] NZSC 155
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal related solely to the specific facts of the underlying litigation, did not raise matters of general or public or commercial importance, the alleged errors were not shown to be sustainable such that a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred, and given the parties' protracted history the respondent was entitled to the protection of security for costs.
31 Jul 2023

WGTN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, NZ CASH FLOW CONTROL LTD, 2468 LTD & ROGER BLAYLOCK & YVONNE KEREKES v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL [2023] NZCA 336

Citation

[2023] NZCA 336
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because the contested arguments were either fact dependent or lacked sufficient legal merit or general importance to meet the s 18A threshold; the Court must apply established rehearing principles and was not required to adopt an intermediate deferential standard.
9 Feb 2023

TAVENDALE & PARTNERS LTD v DINEEN [2023] NZHC 157

Citation

[2023] NZHC 157
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was granted because several proposed grounds were found arguable, in particular the important legal issue concerning the correct standard of review (prima facie versus full review) on challenges to existence/validity/scope of arbitration agreements; delay was not a significant factor and the interests of justice favored granting leave, although the Court identified the first proposed ground (reliance on an unpleaded clause) as lacking merit.
20 Dec 2022

NEW ZEALAND INSTITUTE OF INDEPENDENT RADIOLOGISTS INC v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2022] NZHC 3547

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3547
Court

High Court

The application for judicial review is dismissed because ACC acted lawfully and rationally in choosing to manage conflicts of interest arising from referrer ownership through disclosure, monitoring and conflict management plans under cl 18.2 of the Agreement; s 262(3) imposes an overarching obligation rather than a discrete mandatory consideration requiring prohibition; there is no evidence of actual harm or unlawful exercise of power and no breach of legitimate expectation.
13 Apr 2022

WOOLWORTHS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2022] NZSC 46

Citation

[2022] NZSC 46
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the Court of Appeal was correct to require absence of a 'real and appreciable possibility' that a provisional policy element would minimise alcohol-related harm such that proportionality considerations are immaterial; the Court also granted leave for the Medical Officer of Health to appear as an interested party and approved the specific question for the substantive hearing.
31 Mar 2022

NORTHASH LTD v ZEFF FARMS LTD [2022] NZHC 645

Citation

[2022] NZHC 645
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was declined. The Court held that lost future milk production can be recoverable as part of reinstatement costs (being unavoidable loss of occupation/production during repair). However, because Zeff established an actual diminution in market value of the property ($490,000) which was less than the calculated reinstatement cost ($536,524.50), the appropriate measure of damages was the diminution in value. The arbitrator did not err in accepting valuation or reinstatement evidence and no properly arguable question of law was established.
14 Dec 2021

CHEYMAN LEE MITCHELL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZSC 180

Citation

[2021] NZSC 180
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and framed the dispositional question for resolution as whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
4 Nov 2019

FARISHA FARINA DEAN v ASSOCIATE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2019] NZSC 119 [4 November 2019]

Citation

[2019] NZSC 119
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because (a) the Court accepted that intensity of review could be a matter of public importance but found obstacles to a claim of heightened scrutiny given the statutory scheme (s11) and the nature of the decisions, and (b) this case was an unsuitable vehicle to resolve the issue due to its unusual facts and litigation history, and there was no risk of miscarriage of justice; the lower courts' conclusions that the respondent's decision was not unreasonable were upheld.
23 Oct 2019

MILK NEW ZEALAND (SHANGHAI) CO. LIMITED v MIRAKA LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2713 [23 October 2019]

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2713
Court

High Court

The court affirmed the Arbitrator's construction that the UHT Agreement's liquidated damages provisions applied only to the expressly identified scenarios (first season and peak months) and did not displace the ordinary common law remedy for whole-season shortfalls where the contract was silent; on the facts MNZ's failure to comply with the notification regime caused the seasonal shortfalls and Miraka's obligation was thereby excused or reduced to best endeavours as to orders, so Miraka was entitled to damages for Seasons Two and Three; however the Arbitrator erred in law to the extent he awa…
2 Jul 2019

GASKIN v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2019] NZHC 1530

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1530
Court

High Court

On the facts the sequence of occupational and medical assessments, together with branch medical adviser sign-off, provided a sufficient and objectively reasonable basis in mid-2015 for ACC to conclude the claimant was likely to achieve vocational independence under s 110(3)(a); the Act does not require a strict two-step sequential assessment under s 86 and ACC's vocational rehabilitation processes were adequate; District Court's dismissal of the appeal was upheld.