New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disciplinary procedures

Legal area

Court

1 May 2019

O’NEILL v BRIDGMAN [2019] NZHC 944

Citation

[2019] NZHC 944
Court

High Court

The statement of claim was struck out and the proceeding dismissed because it was an abuse of process and disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action: the pleading was defective and made unsubstantiated scandalous allegations; moreover the respondents lacked power to investigate or discipline registrars for functions that are judicial in nature due to separation of powers, and the proper remedies were review under r 2.11 or the court's inherent supervisory jurisdiction rather than executive disciplinary action.
22 Feb 2019

DEEP v AUCKLAND GOLD LINE CO-OPERATIVE TAXI SOCIETY LIMITED [2019] NZHC 217

Citation

[2019] NZHC 217
Court

High Court

Court held two reviewable breaches proven: (1) the Board failed to hold AGMs as required by r 12.1 between 2016 and 2018 (despite member resolutions deferring AGMs, members did not constitutionally amend rules), and (2) the Board failed to specify reasonable times for inspection of the share register in breach of r 6.2 when requests were made (requests of 31 March 2016). The Court rejected claims of bias or improper purpose as unsupported and held other challenges were non‑reviewable, contractual, or moot or were ratified by members; appointments of directors were ratified at the 7 May 2016 S…
7 Dec 2018

ATTORNEY-GENERAL v INSTITUTION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2018] NZHC 3211

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3211
Court

High Court

The Attorney-General had standing to bring the judicial review in the public interest; the Institution misconstrued its Rules and Regulations by treating resignation as automatically removing 'Member' for the purposes of pending disciplinary complaints; on proper textual and contextual interpretation 'Member' includes a person who was a member when the complaint was instituted so the Investigating Committee erred in law in dismissing the complaint; declarations were granted and the Committee's decision set aside, leaving it to the Institution to reconsider whether to proceed.
17 Oct 2017

MCLANAHAN v THE NEW ZEALAND REGISTERED ARCHITECTS BOARDS [2017] NZCA 458 [17 October 2017]

Citation

[2017] NZCA 458
Court

Court of Appeal

r 62(a) is confined to a jurisdictional inquiry (whether the alleged facts, if established, fall within s 25(1) grounds); an investigating committee exceeded its powers by dismissing 23 heads of complaint solely under r 62(a) on the basis of evidential insufficiency or lack of a prima facie case (such assessment belongs to r 62(c) or other grounds). The Board's decision of 23 September 2015 is quashed in respect of those 23 heads and the Board is directed to make a fresh decision under r 70. Rule 50 requires agreement of the terms of appointment before professional work commences (subject to…
18 Dec 2015

MAXBERRY v NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2015] NZHC 3340

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3340
Court

High Court

The termination of Mr Maxberry's individual membership was invalid because the NRANZ Council lacked jurisdiction under the constitution to terminate membership (that power required a General Meeting resolution or disciplinary committee) and the Council's decision was taken in breach of natural justice; the Appeal Committee lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an invalid Council decision; the HSEA claim was dismissed as fact‑intensive, inadequately pleaded for judicial review and addressed by the inspector who found no breach.
5 Oct 2012

DR PATRICK JOSEPH CASEY V THE COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE OF THE VETERINARY COUNCIL OF NEW ZEALAND HC WN CIV 2011-485-1060

Citation

openlaw-55f233db_ff77_4592_a489_c6d9e7351189.pdf
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed because the assessment committee acted within its statutory investigatory role: it was not obliged to begin its inquiry by applying clause 4.6 or to definitively analyse the specific racing rule before laying charges, and it was entitled to rely on the racing authority's finding and to operate under the s 40(3) requirement to advise only the general nature of the complaint.
8 Apr 2009

THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS V ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR AND ANOR CA CA318/2008

Citation

openlaw-3bac6449_c2c8_4379_b227_98674a227f92.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that s 134(2)(a) does not require a separate preliminary hearing before a hearing adjudicator may refer a matter to a Visiting Justice and that the adjudicator may legitimately take into account the prisoner's prior disciplinary history as relevant to whether a higher penalty may be warranted; accordingly the High Court's order setting aside the referral was overturned and the original decisions reinstated.
7 Jun 2007

KEARNS V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOR HC CHCH CIV 2006-409-001893

Citation

openlaw-eac1d357_93cd_4ace_85b2_60bcb6974714.pdf
Court

High Court

On these facts the forfeiture order as to the computer was beyond the scope of the charge and, at minimum, breached natural justice; the confiscation of the computer must be quashed and the computer returned to the applicant.
22 Dec 2005

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INLAND REVENUE V BUCHANAN AND SYMES CA CA2/05

Citation

openlaw-fab8b693_eb30_4afd_a81f_0cbf76088932.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Ignorance of contractual or statutory obligations does not create a presumption that breaches cannot amount to serious misconduct; courts must apply the Oram test and evaluate whether a reasonable and fair employer could have dismissed. Disparity analysis requires three stages (establish disparity, ask whether an adequate explanation exists, and if not determine whether dismissal was nevertheless justified). Where disciplinary action is part of a coordinated, contemporaneous process subsequent cases may be taken into account. Applying those principles the Authority was entitled to find seriou…