New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Appeal standard of review

  • 7 Sept 2023

    REEVES AND MIDDLETON v MCELDOWNEY [2023] NZHC 2511

    Citation
    [2023] NZHC 2511
    Court
    High Court

    The appellate court held the Family Court's quantum award was plainly excessive and unsupported by adequate reasoning; only a promise of the Tukapa Street unit was established and the appropriate award is the net sale value of that promised property (NZD 574,250.98) payable jointly to the McEldowneys, plus interest and less amounts already received; the statement that Mrs McEldowney was an 'heir apparent' did not constitute a separate testamentary promise; the correct test for quantum is reasonableness subject to ordinary appellate review.

    • Testamentary promises
    • Quantum of award
    • Reasonableness of relief
    • Appeal standard of review
    • Comparison with family provision claims
    • Costs

  • 27 Jul 2023

    ANSIN v RAMAGE [2023] NZHC 1989

    Citation
    [2023] NZHC 1989
    Court
    High Court

    The Judge properly exercised s25(4) discretionary power: both parties could not afford the outgoings, the LilyLumiere funds were being drawn down and sale was necessary to prevent further deterioration of relationship property and to achieve an equitable, timely resolution; the appellant failed to show she could buy out the respondent or that sale would cause an identifiable disadvantage, therefore the sale order was justified and must stand.

    • Interim sale orders
    • Relationship property division
    • Appeal standard of review
    • Dissipation of assets

  • 17 Apr 2023

    ROSS v RICHARDS [2023] NZHC 797

    Citation
    [2023] NZHC 797
    Court
    High Court

    The High Court dismissed the appeal because the Family Court judge correctly applied the Care of Children Act by making the child's welfare and best interests paramount, properly having regard to the principles in s5 and the child's views under s6, reasonably assessing parental resources and capacities on the evidence, legitimately considering immigration implications as relevant to the child's welfare, and properly declining a s133 psychological report where criteria were not met; the appellant did not discharge the onus to show error.

    • Parenting orders
    • Child welfare and best interests
    • Guardianship
    • Appeal standard of review
    • Psychological assessment under s133

  • 20 Mar 2023

    WAIAPU v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 596

    Citation
    [2023] NZHC 596
    Court
    High Court

    The High Court upheld the District Court's application of the Hill test: the circumstances of Grey joining an unprovoked attack were not sufficiently exceptional (individually or in combination) to render the risk of another attack remote; therefore s 57(3) required an order for destruction and the District Court did not err.

    • Destruction of dog
    • S 57(3) exceptional circumstances test
    • Strict liability offence under s 57(2)
    • Sentencing
    • Appeal standard of review
    • Owner liability definition

  • 18 Aug 2020

    LEE v LEE [2020] NZHC 2089

    Citation
    [2020] NZHC 2089
    Court
    High Court

    The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to discharge the burden to demonstrate New Zealand is an inappropriate forum and that Korea is the more appropriate forum; the appellant's proposed further evidence was inadmissible (non-compliant affidavit and unsupported foreign document) and did not meet the credible, fresh and cogent tests; the Family Court did not err in law or in exercise of discretion in refusing the stay.

    • Forum non conveniens
    • Jurisdiction
    • Division of relationship property
    • Admission of fresh evidence
    • Appeal standard of review

  • 18 Jun 2019

    ELLIS v THE AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 5 [2019] NZHC 1384

    Citation
    [2019] NZHC 1384
    Court
    High Court

    The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the appellant committed misconduct under s 7(1)(a)(ii) (reckless breach of reg 12(7)) and under s 7(1)(a)(i) by cumulative dishonourable conduct: grossly careless duplication of invoiced attendances, unjustified deduction of a 2016 fee from client trust funds contrary to s 110, and prolonged failure to respond, amplified by a serious prior disciplinary history; on that basis striking off was an appropriate and necessary protective sanction.

    • Misconduct vs unsatisfactory conduct
    • Trust account obligations
    • Deduction from client funds (s110)
    • Regulation 12(7) reporting
    • Penalty: striking off and suspension
    • Appeal standard of review

  • 4 Apr 2019

    ALSOP v R [2019] NZHC 697

    Citation
    [2019] NZHC 697
    Court
    High Court

    The District Court did not err: given the seriousness and predatory nature of the offending, the appellant's limited insight, and that the proposed address (his parents' home) was the environment associated with his childhood neglect and sexual abuse, the residence was unsuitable and home detention was not an appropriate substitute for imprisonment; the 19 month sentence was properly imposed and is affirmed.

    • Home detention suitability
    • Sentencing principles (ss 7 and 8)
    • Grooming
    • Indecent assault
    • Exposure to indecent material
    • Appeal standard of review

  • 18 Sept 2015

    O'CONNOR v LAW DEBT COLLECTION LTD [2015] NZHC 2265

    Citation
    [2015] NZHC 2265
    Court
    High Court

    On the balance of probabilities the appellant contracted with CoveKinloch (offer addressed to and accepted with conduct by O'Connor, payments and direct dealings), therefore he was the defaulting debtor and the District Court's finding was correct; appeal dismissed.

    • Misleading or deceptive conduct
    • Credit/default listings
    • Limitation period
    • Injunctive relief
    • Appeal standard of review

  • 29 Aug 2014

    COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE 20003 v JHAGROO [2014] NZHC 2077

    Citation
    [2014] NZHC 2077
    Court
    High Court

    The Court upheld the Tribunal's conclusions: the respondent's failure to make adequate enquiries and his incorrect advice about sufficiency of purchase price amounted to high‑level unsatisfactory conduct under s72 but did not reach the statutory threshold for misconduct under s73; reliance on legal advice that gave a layperson reasonable assurance justified concluding the deduction of commission, while callous, was not disgraceful conduct.

    • Misconduct under s73
    • Unsatisfactory conduct under s72
    • Professional negligence
    • Appeal standard of review
    • Trust account and deposit handling
    • Commission deduction

  • 14 Aug 2014

    SAYLES v ADAMS and ADAMS [2014] NZHC 1915

    Citation
    [2014] NZHC 1915
    Court
    High Court

    On the evidence the Tribunal correctly found that Sayles acted as the project manager who assumed responsibility for the works, owed a duty of care to the Adams, breached that duty, and the High Court on rehearing concurred with those factual and legal conclusions; the appeal is dismissed.

    • Duty of care
    • Assumption of responsibility
    • Project manager liability
    • Appeal standard of review
    • Credibility findings