New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bias

Legal area

Court

24 Nov 2023

DELIU v THE DEPUTY LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER [2023] NZHC 3340

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3340
Court

High Court

Disclosure required by Powell J was insufficient in substance to permit informed decisions about recusal; the Deputy LCRO's reconsideration of 6 July 2023 proceeded on the wrong basis by failing to address the correct recusal application and by giving inadequate reasons; those errors breached natural justice and the 6 July 2023 decision is quashed with directions to provide fuller disclosure and to reconsider recusal and mode of hearing with reasoned decisions.
7 Jul 2022

FREWER v CANTERBURY RADIO CONTROL CAR CLUB INCORPORATED [2022] NZHC 1604 [27 June 2022]

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1604
Court

High Court

The tyre decision was not amenable to judicial review because it was an internal management decision of a private incorporated society concerning race class parameters and did not raise sufficient public or quasi‑public concerns; alternatively, on the merits, the applicant failed to establish illegality, bias, breach of natural justice or legitimate expectation warranting relief, and relief would be inappropriate given alternative internal remedies and subsequent votes.
24 May 2022

HUNTER v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2022] NZCA 205

Citation

[2022] NZCA 205
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because the High Court correctly concluded that the withdrawal of the earlier judicial review was irrelevant to the lawfulness of the panel's later decision, the panel properly considered and weighed expert evidence on heritage and amenity under the RMA (including s5 and s6(f)), its conclusion was open to it and not unreasonable, and there was no evidential basis for alleging bias or procedural unfairness.
16 Dec 2021

JW v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2021] NZHC 3489

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3489
Court

High Court

Leave was refused because the asserted errors were at most factual findings or misapplications of principle that were within the Tribunal's evaluative province, were supported by evidence, were not demonstrably so untenable as to amount to error of law, did not raise issues of general or public importance, and the alleged translation discrepancies were immaterial to the outcome; no bias or unlawful unreasonableness was established.
18 Nov 2021

HONG v NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2021] NZCA 611

Citation

[2021] NZCA 611
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held causes of action 1, 2 and 3(1) merely re-litigated issues finally determined by the High Court and therefore constituted an impermissible collateral attack/abuse of process and were correctly struck out; cause of action 3(2) was deficient in pleading but raised matters beyond the prior appeal and was allowed to be re-pleaded within one month; the High Court costs judgment was correctly made and was upheld.
22 Sept 2021

BENJAMIN MORLAND EASTON v REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND [2021] NZSC 123

Citation

[2021] NZSC 123
Court

Supreme Court

Cull J correctly applied the fee waiver criteria and concluded the judicial review application did not raise genuine public interest issues; the Supreme Court agreed there were no exceptional circumstances to permit a direct appeal, granted an extension of time for the leave application but dismissed leave to appeal, and ordered costs against the applicant.
30 Jul 2020

PRESCOTT v THOMPSON NO 3 [2020] NZHC 1858

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1858
Court

High Court

The applicant's judicial review failed and his conduct—repeated meritless strike out applications and unsubstantiated bias allegations—unnecessarily increased the respondent's costs; invocation of the Bill of Rights Act did not preclude a costs order; accordingly costs are awarded to the first respondent against the applicant on a 2B scale with a 25% uplift.
15 Jun 2020

BIGGS v BIGGS [2020] NZHC 1337

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1337
Court

High Court

The application to recuse was dismissed because a fair‑minded, fully informed observer would not reasonably apprehend that the judge could not bring an impartial mind to the trial; prior interlocutory comments and appellate attention did not determine trial issues and do not, by themselves, require recusal, and the judge will examine all evidence afresh at trial.
11 Nov 2019

GUO v CULPAN (NO 2) [2019] NZHC 2935

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2935
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was declined because the applicant did not identify any arguable question of law of general or public importance; the matters complained of were factual or procedural and did not raise legal errors warranting appeal; the Tribunal's strike-out was justified by the applicant's refusal to be cross-examined and allegations of bias were not substantiated.
15 Apr 2019

WANG v MA [2019] NZHC 821

Citation

[2019] NZHC 821
Court

High Court

The appeal was dismissed because the Family Court judge properly exercised her discretion under s 24: the appellant failed to provide an adequate explanation for the long delay, did not establish a basic evidential foundation or prima facie merit with necessary corroboration, the further evidence was not fresh and could have been adduced earlier, and granting leave would cause prejudice to the respondent; no bias was established.