New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Amicus curiae appointment

Legal area

Court

1 Jun 2022

DU PREEZ & ANOR v ESTATE OF BARBARA ANNE DOORNEKAMP-WELLMAN & ORS [2022] NZHC 1278

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1278
Court

High Court

The application for appointment of an amicus was declined because the circumstances did not meet the limited exceptional grounds for appointing an amicus; self-represented plaintiffs should seek legal aid where eligible and cannot expect public funds to pay counsel if they have available assets; non-lawyers cannot represent other parties without court leave; alleged inaccuracies in court minutes must be addressed by recall application with affidavit evidence.
10 Oct 2018

HARTLEY v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2018] NZHC 2639

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2639
Court

High Court

Appointment of an amicus was declined because such appointments are exceptional, legal aid had been refused twice, the applicant's statement of claim was clear and focussed showing he could articulate issues, the Crown would provide a full opposing case obviating need for a contradictor, and no novel or complex point of law was identified that required court assistance by independent counsel.
5 Dec 2017

ERWOOD v HOLMES & ORS [2017] NZHC 2999

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2999
Court

High Court

The application was an abuse of process, frivolous and vexatious because it sought to relitigate matters already decided; therefore it was dismissed and the registry was directed to refer any future similar applications by the plaintiff to a Judge before registration.
5 Jun 2012

TAYLOR v MANAGER OF AUCKLAND PRISON HC AK CIV-2011-404-006168

Citation

openlaw-71a11b28_88b9_4422_8ef7_bec3be0c5cdd.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 7 of the Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010 does not authorise the court to compel an opposing participant to appear by AVL in civil public law proceedings in a way that would deprive the plaintiff of physical attendance; alternatively, even if such power existed the Court would not exercise it here because compelling AVL would unjustifiably impair the plaintiff's NZBORA s27 rights, natural justice, and access to the courts given the public law character of the case and the practical disadvantages to a self-represented litigant. The defendant's s7 application for compulsory AVL is…
24 Aug 2010

ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HC AK CIV-2009-404-7339

Citation

openlaw-5753dde9_dd87_417d_ba52_53f88b42af2c.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed Mr Taylor's application for appointment of an amicus or independent expert because the roles sought are essentially non-partisan and the applicant had available means (including legal aid) to obtain representation and evidence; interlocutory relief for reinstatement of visits was constrained by binding Court of Appeal conclusions that there was no serious question to be tried in relation to the relief sought and jurisdictional limits; notices to admit facts and interrogatories were adjourned because the respondent had yet to file its evidence and because the Rules provide…
13 Apr 2010

ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HC AK CIV-2009-404-7339

Citation

openlaw-37a4272e_34ec_4aad_89c9_8c408b5aee44.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court refused to make immediate appointments because the applicant had not shown requisite particularity, there was no evidence the named or proposed experts were willing or able to assist, no reliable cost information or proof of impecuniosity, and the roles of amicus or court expert are non‑partisan and ill suited to supply the partisan evidence the applicant sought; the applications were therefore adjourned part‑heard with directions that proposed experts provide résumés and fee estimates within 28 days and the parties consider appointing counsel for the child (with associated legal ai…

New Zealand Case Law

DU PREEZ & ANOR v ESTATE OF BARBARA ANNE DOORNEKAMP-WELLMAN & ORS [2022] NZHC 1278

HARTLEY v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2018] NZHC 2639

ERWOOD v HOLMES & ORS [2017] NZHC 2999

TAYLOR v MANAGER OF AUCKLAND PRISON HC AK CIV-2011-404-006168

ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HC AK CIV-2009-404-7339

ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HC AK CIV-2009-404-7339