New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Apprehension of bias

Legal area

Court

9 Dec 2021

JONES v NZ BLOODSTOCK FINANCE AND LEASING LIMITED [2021] NZHC 3371

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3371
Court

High Court

Recusal dismissed because an informed fair-minded observer would not reasonably apprehend bias: the judge's comments derived from the applicant's affidavit and were moderate and legitimate concerns rather than personal criticism; recall dismissed because Nash criteria for recalling judgments were not met and the proceeding was properly found on its face to be plainly an abuse of process under r 5.35B; the correct remedy for alleged legal error is appeal.
19 Feb 2021

DELIU v THE AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT [2021] NZHC 213

Citation

[2021] NZHC 213
Court

High Court

Recusal was refused because the challenged directions were routine case management steps made in the context of telephone mentions and voluminous filings, the applicant's grievances amounted to alleged legal errors not indications of bias, joinder of the Attorney‑General was appropriate, and a fair‑minded informed observer would not have a reasonable apprehension that the Judge would not decide matters on the merits.
30 Jul 2018

STOCKMAN v NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION OF COUNSELLORS INCORPORATED [2018] NZHC 1902

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1902
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal out of time was granted because the applicant genuinely misunderstood the appeals regime and registry processes, but leave to appeal was refused on the merits because the judge's conduct did not amount to actual or apparent bias, the Law Commission association was remote, the adjournment to permit amendment of pleadings was appropriate, and the high threshold for recusal and leave to appeal was not met.
7 Nov 2008

SAXMERE COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS V WOOL BOARD DISESTABLISHMENT COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOR SC 64/2007

Citation

SAXMERE COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS V WOOL BOARD DISESTABLISHMENT COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOR SC 64/2007
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was granted on the specific ground that the alleged relationship between Wilson J and Mr Galbraith QC raised a reasonable apprehension of bias; the Court held it had jurisdiction to hear a second application despite earlier leave refusal, excused lateness, and directed that the matter proceed in the Supreme Court for determination of that ground with specified evidentiary steps and procedural directions.
24 Jul 2006

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR NEW ZEALAND V MOODIE HC WN CIV 2005-485-001026

Citation

openlaw-7c0ca2cf_b1e1_4d9a_a92a_8db0bf7c1746.pdf
Court

High Court

Formerly appointed amici (R A Dobson QC and R M Lithgow) must not be permitted to act as counsel for the Solicitor‑General in these proceedings because permitting the change of role would risk undermining public confidence and the appearance of impartiality; principles protecting the amicus role outweigh pragmatic considerations and there is no precedent allowing such a role change in these circumstances.

New Zealand Case Law

JONES v NZ BLOODSTOCK FINANCE AND LEASING LIMITED [2021] NZHC 3371

DELIU v THE AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT [2021] NZHC 213

STOCKMAN v NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION OF COUNSELLORS INCORPORATED [2018] NZHC 1902

SAXMERE COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS V WOOL BOARD DISESTABLISHMENT COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOR SC 64/2007

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR NEW ZEALAND V MOODIE HC WN CIV 2005-485-001026