New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unreasonableness review

Legal area

Court

23 Jul 2021

SHEA LIMITED trading as STONEWOOD HOMES EAST AUCKLAND v THE DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU [2021] NZHC 1880

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1880
Court

High Court

The application for judicial review is dismissed because Shea Ltd was aware the franchise fee issue was in dispute, chose to rely on legal advice and sent a representative unwilling or unable to answer the tribunal's questions, the Referee gave fair opportunity and was entitled to draw an adverse inference and reopen the settlement, and the District Court properly limited review to the statutory ground of unfair conduct and reasonably dismissed the appeal; judicial review cannot be used to re-litigate merits beyond the legislature's limited appeal rights.
7 Oct 2020

NEW CONSERVATIVE v TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2650

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2650
Court

High Court

Applicants failed to establish a prima facie case for mandatory interim relief: TVNZ's revised selection criteria were not unreasonable; TVNZ properly considered Māori electorate representation; no evidence that referenda made New Conservative's exclusion a relevant consideration; no unlawful fettering of discretion; poll margin of error cannot be added to inflate results; accordingly interim mandatory relief to require invitation of Mr Baker was declined.
4 Dec 2014

BV v THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL CA188/2014 [2014] NZCA 594

Citation

[2014] NZCA 594
Court

Court of Appeal

The Tribunal lawfully applied established credibility principles, identified material inconsistencies and implausibilities in the appellant's accounts, afforded him opportunity to respond, and therefore its adverse credibility findings and consequent rejection of the refugee claim were lawful, not a breach of natural justice, and not unreasonable.
1 Aug 2014

K v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2014] NZHC 1800

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1800
Court

High Court

Leave was refused because the issues raised were either matters of law that could be dealt with on appeal or meritless factual assertions lacking general or public importance; the IPT's decision was thoroughly reasoned, supported by evidence and applicable precedent (including Taunoa), and no legal error was demonstrated so s249(1C) criteria for leave were not satisfied.
29 Apr 2013

CARROLL & WOODHOUSE V CORONER'S COURT & POLICE HC AK CIV-2012-404-4779

Citation

openlaw-baef6d65_3437_42c6_afea_a9ee72e0ae96.pdf
Court

High Court

Where a coroner makes adverse comments about living persons those persons must be given reasonable prior notice and opportunity to be heard under s15(2)(b) and natural justice; a coroner's factual finding that conduct contributed to death must be supported by probative evidence and not mere speculation — the impugned paragraphs [55]-[59] were speculative and procedurally unfair and are quashed.
14 Dec 2012

HEALTHCARE OF NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V CAPITAL AND COAST DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD HC WN CIV 2011-485-1998

Citation

openlaw-d6138823_53b5_4693_b3f7_7ac99c5ce7b6.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held CCDHB complied with statutory obligations in preparing and finalising its annual plan, provided adequate high-level information to the NHB/Minister, lawfully issued the RFP and entered contracts following a rational evaluation process; detailed pricing modelling in the annual plan was not legally required where NHB/Minister oversight and market testing via RFP were available, and Healthcare failed to show illegality or unreasonableness warranting relief.
10 Jul 2008

LLOYD AND ORS V WAIKATO DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ANOR HC HAM CIV 2003-419-1460

Citation

openlaw-693e1473_de99_467e_86d2_94bfd6a07f9d.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court struck out the proceeding as the challenged decisions had been superseded and any remedies would be academic; given the procedural history both parties contributed to delay and unnecessary costs and fairness required that each party bear its own costs, therefore Council's application for costs was dismissed.
23 Nov 2005

GEORGE V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR DEPT OF CORRECTIONS HC CHCH CIV 2005-409-931

Citation

openlaw-69efb4b0_0f32_487b_935d_95f11df82b69.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 12 of Schedule 4 applies only where a Superintendent or authorised staff member will hear the disciplinary charge; once the Superintendent referred the matter to Visiting Justices the inspector lacked jurisdiction and the statutory time limits no longer applied; the total delay from laying to Visiting Justices hearing (approximately six weeks) was not unreasonable given the adjournments and applicant's conduct, and the applicant failed to raise a general delay submission before the Visiting Justices or to timely apply to the inspector, so there was no basis for judicial intervention an…