New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Wednesbury unreasonableness

Legal area

Court

27 Oct 2023

SOUND (SAVE ONERAHI FROM UNDUE NOISE DISTURBANCE) INC v WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 2988

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2988
Court

High Court

The Council's two decisions were in‑principle, not final determinations; they contained no material error of law because RMA ss 16 and 17 are duties on occupiers (Nest would be occupier if leased) and the Council was entitled to assume lawful operation subject to Nest meeting statutory and District Plan requirements; the Council complied with Part 6 LGA obligations in the course of decision‑making (including establishing and engaging the noise committee and public engagement) and the decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable.
13 Sept 2023

GRACE v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2023] NZHC 2551

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2551
Court

High Court

All causes of action dismissed: the Court held Corrections did not unlawfully fail to review or manage security classification; the month‑long reconsideration was not unreasonably delayed in context; Corrections permissibly considered recent incident reports in risk assessment even if uncharged; no admissible evidence established IOMS entries were inaccurate; the Parole Board's unsupported reference to removal from work was not traced to Corrections and did not ground judicial review; therapeutic judgments and clinical decisions by psychologists and routine reports to the Parole Board were no…
29 Jun 2023

WOOLLEY v FONTERRA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP LIMITED [2023] NZCA 266

Citation

[2023] NZCA 266
Court

Court of Appeal

The Opus Certificate did not unambiguously satisfy the Environment Court's Enforcement Order (including the additional unqualified requirement in B(2)); Ruling 3 was not a judgment in rem binding Fonterra; Fonterra was justified in maintaining suspension while the regulator contested compliance and thus did not breach the contract or any implied term; appeal dismissed.
26 Jan 2023

SIMPSON v MINISTRY OF JUSTICE [2023] NZHC 28

Citation

[2023] NZHC 28
Court

High Court

The Central Authority lawfully and reasonably declined to proceed with the Article 21 access application because it properly treated the child's welfare and expressed views as relevant and paramount in the access context, concluded the application lacked reasonable prospects of success and alternative domestic remedies were available, and any delay was justified and not prejudicial.
16 Aug 2022

BRAUN v LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER [2022] NZHC 2020

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2020
Court

High Court

The Court declined to order costs against the LCRO because the errors were errors of law/process and the LCRO had abided the Court's decision, meaning the Newton threshold for disapproval was not met; the Court ordered costs against Ms Harris only for the period after she first engaged with the proceeding (from 8 June 2022), awarding $2,987.50 plus disbursements of $43.48 (excluding GST).
7 Oct 2021

NEW ZEALAND AVIATION FEDERATION (INC) v CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF NEW ZEALAND [2021] NZHC 2674

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2674
Court

High Court

CAR 19.207(3) must be read to require both the carriage of specified non-GNSS (sole-means) navigation equipment and that those sole-means systems be appropriate to and able to provide navigation for the specific route segment; the Director validly exercised s37(2)(d) to exempt operators from the 'appropriate for the route' limb subject to conditions that mitigate safety risk pending rule change; allegations of improper purpose, abuse of discretion, failure to consult and Wednesbury unreasonableness were not established and the NZAF's claims were dismissed.
17 Sept 2021

X and Y v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, ORANGA TAMARIKI [2021] NZHC 2449

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2449
Court

High Court

Court held OT breached s27(1) NZBORA in process: Y was not given any opportunity to be heard and X was unreasonably denied an extension to respond to the Draft Outcome Report; remedy is a declaratory vindication only (no Baigent damages awarded); the negligence claim was time‑barred under the Limitation Act 2010 (s47 inapplicable because Chief Executive's letter did not acknowledge legal liability) and is dismissed; the judicial review challenge to the Chief Executive's partial rejection of Advisory Panel recommendations failed because there was no legal duty to provide further reasons in the…
6 Aug 2021

PARMENTER v LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER [2021] NZHC 2025

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2025
Court

High Court

The Court held the LCRO and Standards Committee's finding of lack of diligence was Wednesbury unreasonable on the facts; while a lawyer must take reasonable steps to ensure discovery is completed, there was insufficient evidence that Mr Parmenter fell below the minimum standard of diligence given the circumstances (illness, travel, client-led document review, communications with opposing counsel); s 12(a) does not require both incompetence and lack of diligence to be established. Accordingly the findings of unsatisfactory conduct and associated penalty were set aside.
19 Dec 2019

Polyblank v New Zealand Parole Board [2019] NZHC 3425

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3425
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed the application: proceeding by AVL did not breach natural justice because the applicant was given notice and waived oral attendance and had filed comprehensive written submissions; the Board did not take into account irrelevant matters nor fail to take into account material relevant considerations such that its decision was unlawful; the special conditions were lawfully within s15 Parole Act 2002, were rationally connected to identified risks (untreated child sex offending and alcohol dependency) and were not so disproportionate as to warrant intervention under judicial re…
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.