New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Administrative discretion

Legal area

Court

6 Dec 2021

TE POU MATAKANA LIMITED v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 3319

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3319
Court

High Court

The Ministry misapplied r 11(2)(d) by effectively reintroducing an imminence requirement and setting the 'necessary' threshold higher than 'needed or required'; it failed to undertake an evidence-based assessment of the anticipated effectiveness of disclosing the requested individual-level data and of identified less privacy-intrusive alternatives; reliance on iwi governance concerns and process amounted to imposing an authorization requirement and the exclusion of applicants from key consultation materially breached natural justice; the Director-General's refusal and exercise of discretion w…
14 Dec 2018

NIXON v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2018] NZHC 3317

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3317
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to plead reviewable legal error; the Crown Law letter could not bind the Ministry to pay contrary to statutory entitlement; statutory provisions (ss 61, 72 and s 70B) precluded emergency top‑ups while another benefit applied; the s 66A discretion was correctly treated as distinct from SLP entitlement and not unlawfully exercised; and specialist statutory review and appeal mechanisms meant judicial review was inappropriate or unnecessary for the matters complained of.
16 Mar 2017

STIRLING BLOODSTOCK LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND THOROUGHBRED RACING INCORPORATED [2017] NZHC 464

Citation

[2017]NZAR 547
Court

High Court

Article 14 does not exhaust or rigidly constrain NZTR’s broad discretionary power to refuse names; NZTR lawfully exercised that discretion when it declined 'Lip Up Fatty' and 'Rotten Culture' given contextual factors (including prior attempted name, Racing Australia’s view and meaning ascertainment); it did not err in refusing 'Rotten Culture' without awaiting Racing Australia because concurrence is only required if NZTR intended to approve; no relevant procedural or legal error was established and the judicial review application is dismissed.
1 Jun 2016

TAYLOR v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2016] NZHC 1160

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1160
Court

High Court

The Authority acted within its statutory discretion under s69C and the Regulations, was not legally required to follow the Ministry's MaP Powerswitch step mechanically, and its factual evaluative judgment fixing additional power costs at 15% was supported by evidence and not obviously wrong, so the questions of law are answered in favour of the Authority's methodology and conclusion.

New Zealand Case Law

TE POU MATAKANA LIMITED v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 3319

NIXON v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2018] NZHC 3317

STIRLING BLOODSTOCK LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND THOROUGHBRED RACING INCORPORATED [2017] NZHC 464

TAYLOR v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2016] NZHC 1160