New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statutory immunity

Legal area

Court

8 Sept 2022

NEW ZEALAND POLICE v WILLIAMS [2022] NZCA 419

Citation

[2022] NZCA 419
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that s 48 of the OIA operates as a jurisdictional immunity: where information was provided in response to an OIA request and there is no indication of bad faith, good faith is presumed and the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the claim; the party seeking to overcome the immunity bears the burden of pleading and proving absence of good faith; the Tribunal may determine jurisdiction summarily in appropriate cases.
12 May 2022

S v W [2022] NZCA 181

Citation

[2022] NZCA 181
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the complaint to the DHB was not covered by absolute privilege because intermediary communications and investigatory stages (DHB to Medical Council; evidence to PCC) are only protected by qualified privilege under statute; extending absolute privilege to the employer complaint would conflict with the statutory scheme and international protections for reputation, and qualified privilege provides adequate protection to complainants.
8 Sept 2021

WILLIAMS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2345

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2345
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was granted because the two legal questions identified are questions of law capable of serious argument and of public importance: (1) whether the Human Rights Review Tribunal may grant summary judgment absent express statutory authority, and (2) the correct interpretation of s48 OIA including who bears the burden of proof and whether good faith is presumed.
10 Jun 2021

YOUNG v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 1359

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1359
Court

High Court

The Crown, as the successful party, was entitled to costs on a 2B basis; the Crown's pre-litigation hybrid redzone offer did not equate to an award of damages and the Crown discharged its measured duty by making that offer; an uplift to preparation for briefs was justified due to complexity and expert evidence; expert disbursements were awarded in reduced form after independent review and adjustments.
19 Apr 2021

WILLIAMS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 808

Citation

[2021] 2 NZLR 292
Court

High Court

s 48 OIA is an affirmative defence for a defendant to plead and prove; the Tribunal incorrectly placed the burden on the claimant and impermissibly conducted a factual inquiry drawing inferences on strike-out under s 115A instead of assessing whether the pleaded claim was clearly untenable; appeal allowed and matter remitted to Tribunal.
19 Aug 2020

DELIU v CHAPMAN [2020] NZHC 2100

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2100
Court

High Court

A security for costs order is justified only where the proceedings lack a reasonably arguable cause of action analogous to the strike-out threshold. Applying that test, the Court found the claims against the IPCA barred or not reasonably arguable under s 33(1)(a) and the claims against members of Meredith Connell insufficiently pleaded and not reasonably arguable, and therefore ordered security of $5,000 in each of those proceedings; by contrast, claims against the Police in two proceedings were at least reasonably arguable and security against the Police was declined.
8 May 2019

YOUNG v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2019] NZHC 993

Citation

[2019] 3 NZLR 808
Court

High Court

Section 145 does not provide complete immunity for the Crown against Mr Young's nuisance claim because the damage and ongoing nuisance were caused by the 2011 earthquakes, not by actions or omissions that directly or indirectly resulted from the Crown's exercise of statutory powers; s 145 requires a causal link between the statutory action and the loss, though the section does protect claims that arise directly or indirectly from specific statutory acts (eg access restrictions under s45/s86 and demolition or works under s38/s77).
22 Feb 2017

SPARK NEW ZEALAND TRADING LIMITED v COMMERCE COMMISSION [2017] NZHC 238

Citation

[2017] NZHC 238
Court

High Court

The Court has jurisdiction under s 8(1)(a) of the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 to make an interim order prohibiting respondents from relying on a Commerce Commission clearance to complete a transaction where doing so would render any subsequent judicial review nugatory; applying the balance of convenience and public interest, a short tailored stay (until midnight on the third day after delivery of reasons) was necessary to preserve applicants' ability to seek meaningful judicial review and was therefore granted.
4 Feb 2016

WHITE v MAUBACH [2016] NZHC 83

Citation

[2016] NZHC 83
Court

High Court

The court awarded costs to the third and fourth defendants on a 2B basis with disbursements because the statutory immunities had been pleaded and brought to the plaintiff's attention prior to the security application, and no grounds under r14.7 existed to refuse or reduce costs.
30 Nov 2015

CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED v MINISTER OF EDUCATION [2015] NZSC 182

Citation

[2015] NZSC 182
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and cross-appeal to determine whether the Court of Appeal was correct that negligence claims were arguable, negligent misstatement claims were not arguable, and that section 393 of the Building Act 2004 did not apply to the claims.