New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Withdrawal of legal aid

  • 30 Nov 2016

    WALLACE v LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER [2016] NZHC 2870

    Citation
    [2016] NZHC 2870
    Court
    High Court

    Leave to appeal dismissed because the proposed appeal does not raise a question of law of general or public importance nor is it seriously arguable: the original claim on which the Tribunal decided legal aid has been materially altered by re-pleading after Brown J's decision, making it jurisdictionally inappropriate to direct reconsideration of a substantively different claim; Goodyer is not binding on the Tribunal; and any conceded errors are unlikely to produce a useful practical result on appeal.

    • Withdrawal of legal aid
    • Leave to appeal
    • Merits assessment
    • Nzbora s8 right to life
    • Precedent and stare decisis
    • Re-pleading

  • 23 Nov 2016

    ORJI v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2016] NZHC 2801

    Citation
    [2016] NZHC 2801
    Court
    High Court

    Because the applicant had been validly granted legal aid and remained an 'aided person' until the Commissioner lawfully withdraws it, the protection of s45(2) applied; the Court found no exceptional circumstances under s45(3) and therefore refused to order costs against the aided person. The Commissioner retains the duty to invoke withdrawal under s31 if s12 applies.

    • Costs
    • Legal aid entitlement
    • Statutory interpretation
    • Exceptional circumstances
    • Withdrawal of legal aid

  • 23 May 2016

    BOURNEVILLE v LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER [2016] NZHC 1079

    Citation
    [2016] NZHC 1079
    Court
    High Court

    Applicants lacked standing because their primary purpose was collateral and tactical (to cut off funding and end the underlying litigation); alternatively the claim was strike‑out‑worthy on that basis. On the merits the Commissioner did not commit a reviewable error in granting legal aid or in declining to withdraw it because the decision followed specialist advice, valid application of the 'special circumstances' discretion (complexity, likely cost, inability to self‑fund), and reasonable reliance on the Court of Appeal's assessment of prospects of success; discretionary relief would neverth…

    • Standing
    • Withdrawal of legal aid
    • Prospects of success
    • Judicial review
    • Constructive trust
    • Procedural fairness

  • 12 Jul 2013

    C v LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER [2013] NZHC 1758

    Citation
    [2013] NZHC 1758
    Court
    High Court

    Where the Tribunal determines the Commissioner was 'wrong in law' that determination may be appealed to the High Court even if the Tribunal directs reconsideration under s 57; the Commissioner must reconsider taking into account the Tribunal's reasons but is bound by the Tribunal's finding of law unless he or she appeals; s 99(4)(a) does not confer a discretion to pay invoices exceeding a maximum grant, but an application to amend a maximum grant may be made in respect of services performed prior to withdrawal so long as there has been no final disposition.

    • Appeal rights
    • Reconsideration directions
    • Withdrawal of legal aid
    • Amendment of grants
    • Maximum grant
    • Payment of invoices

  • 10 Sept 2009

    LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY V RUSSELL HC AK CIV-2009-404-3107

    Citation
    openlaw-e56d7067_3e49_4656_87f0_619aa9afaeeb.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The Court held that the Panel was wrong to categorically exclude s 9(4)(d)(ii) from relevance; the subsection could legitimately inform the Agency's assessment where non-economic interests are present. The Panel was also wrong to assess prospects by reference to a defendant's likely attitude to a costs-protected litigant; the Agency must apply the reasonable self-funding person test and not advantage legally-aided plaintiffs in that manner. The Agency must, however, consider the incremental benefit and likely cost of a leave application when deciding whether to continue funding as part of a s…

    • Withdrawal of legal aid
    • Prospects of success assessment
    • Cost-benefit analysis of litigation
    • Leave to commence proceedings (limitation act)
    • Manifestly unreasonable review

  • 13 Aug 2009

    PICKARD AND ANOR V AMBROSE AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2003-091-143

    Citation
    openlaw-febfecd2_4a24_4825_b254_96b457129afb.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    Application for further security for costs refused because the defendants sought sums the plaintiffs could not provide, the anonymous funder lacked resources to provide security and an order at the level sought would likely prevent the plaintiffs from proceeding to trial; application to compel disclosure of funder identity refused as not justified on this application; application for further ACC disclosure refused as inappropriate so close to trial given prior broad authorities and lateness of request.

    • Security for costs
    • Third-party litigation funding
    • Discovery of medical records
    • Withdrawal of legal aid
    • Access to justice

  • 3 Jul 2009

    LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY V AMANDA JANE PICKARD AND TROY ALLEN PICKARD-TAYLOR HC AK CIV 2009-404-1230

    Citation
    openlaw-cc8786f9_c9fa_4b61_810e_c30626f43558.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The High Court held the Review Panel made material errors of fact and law by misconstruing the response timeframe, substituting its assessment of reasonableness for the Agency's evaluative decision under s26(2)(c), and failing to apply the high threshold for intervention; the Panel's determination was quashed and the Agency's decision to amend/withdraw aid was reinstated.

    • Withdrawal of legal aid
    • Section 26(2)(c) interpretation
    • Standard of review (manifestly unreasonable/wrong in law)
    • Procedural fairness under s27
    • Settlement offers

  • 23 Mar 2009

    KG RENCH V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL HC WN CIV-2006-485-2304

    Citation
    openlaw-60a0192b_9cff_404b_bee7_7463b1b5b168.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    Application to rescind the earlier timetabling orders and impose an indefinite stay was refused; court held withdrawal of legal aid does not automatically excuse non-compliance, set a firm trial fixture for 2 November 2009 (10 days) and substituted an amended timetable (plaintiff briefs by 1 July 2009; defendant briefs by 1 September 2009) with a pre-trial conference, and declined to make an 'Unless Order' on the facts.

    • Time tabling directions
    • Withdrawal of legal aid
    • Stay of proceedings
    • Vicarious liability
    • Trial listing

  • 6 Mar 2009

    REEKIE V LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY HC AK CIV-2008-404-6451

    Citation
    openlaw-266c6b8a_00c5_4398_b5cd_be8ebc04c996.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The Panel correctly applied the Timmins balancing test and s9(4)(d) of the Legal Services Act 2000, reasonably concluded the likely costs outweighed any likely pecuniary or non‑pecuniary benefits (including speculative collateral benefit to criminal appeals), properly declined to treat NZBORA as overriding the statutory scheme, and did not err in law; therefore the Panel's decision to confirm withdrawal of legal aid was upheld.

    • Withdrawal of legal aid
    • Prospects of success test
    • Cost‑benefit balancing
    • Timmins v larp application
    • Nzbora limitations
    • S9(6) applicability

  • 15 Dec 2008

    LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY V ANDERSON HC WN CIV-2008-404-5206

    Citation
    openlaw-dfb52ca3_1116_4243_9788_fcc08ddd65d5.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The High Court held that Justice Venning's strike-out judgment together with the filing of the amended statement of claim constituted a change in circumstances capable of throwing new light on the aided person's prospects of success, thereby entitling the Agency to reassess and potentially withdraw legal aid under s26(2)(a) and related provisions; the Panel erred in law in concluding those events were not a sufficient basis for review. The further conclusion was that the respondent's subsequent satisfactory attendance at another mainstream school was a relevant factor to the Agency's assessme…

    • Withdrawal of legal aid
    • Prospects of success
    • Manifestly unreasonable review
    • Duty of care to special needs students
    • Strike out and amendment of pleadings
    • Relevance of subsequent events