30 May 2023
Appeal allowed and conviction quashed because the trial judge failed to give reasons as required by s106(2) and counsel did not follow the appellant's instruction to apply for a discharge without conviction; the Crown accepted a miscarriage had occurred and no retrial was ordered as public interest did not require one.
1 Jun 2022
The Environment Court lawfully concluded that replacing existing static billboards with digital LED displays would materially increase driver distraction on a stretch of State Highway with high deaths and serious injuries, creating an unacceptable risk that justified declining the variation to the resource consent; the High Court found that conclusion was open to the Environment Court, that reasons were adequate and legal tests properly applied, and dismissed the s299 appeal.
22 May 2019
The Panel breached s144(8) by failing to provide discernible reasons for its specific recommendations on zoning and height for the Promenade and Lake Road Blocks; general policy statements in the Overview Report did not constitute adequate reasons for those site-specific outcomes; practical difficulty did not excuse the statutory duty; remedy is to order the Panel to provide reasons and remit those matters for reconsideration as necessary.
19 Oct 2018
Leave to appeal was refused because it was not seriously arguable that the duty to give reasons requires the Tribunal to articulate a specific 'analytical path' for credibility assessments; existing authorities establish a flexible, fact-sensitive approach and the Tribunal gave adequate reasons in this case, so the proposed question was not of general or public importance under s245.
15 Feb 2018
The Court held the Panel's recommendation to create Sub‑precinct C and to include Lighter Quay was supported by evidence and accompanied by sufficient reasons within the statutory context and therefore not an error of law; however the Panel erred in omitting the two‑metre roof bonus despite an agreed Mediation Joint Statement recorded by parties and relied upon in evidence — that omission was unreasonable and unlawful, so the recommendation and the Council's adoption of it in that respect were quashed and the Council was ordered to amend the AUP to include the two‑metre roof bonus for Sub‑pre…
20 Oct 2017
Extension of time to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because any procedural irregularity at trial (not hearing the Crown or not giving written reasons) did not amount to an ultra vires act or miscarriage of justice; the transcript showed the trial judge's reasoning and the sufficiency of the evidence was already conclusively addressed on appeal so the High Court properly exercised its discretion and correctly dismissed the judicial review.
29 Sept 2017
Given the statutory purpose and the volume of submissions, s144(8)(c) permits topic-level grouping and abbreviated reasons. The Panel satisfied its statutory and common law duty by giving reasons at the topic/strategic level and by providing integrated reasons across Part 1 reports, amended plan text and GIS maps; it was not required to give site-specific reasons for every submission. The Council lawfully adopted the Panel's recommendations. Appeal and judicial review fail.
7 May 2015
Leave to institute the proposed judicial review was refused because the proposed proceedings were an abuse of process, the allegations were untenable and repetitive, the District Court had already given reasons, and there was no merit in further attempts by a declared vexatious litigant to relitigate the matter.
27 Feb 2014
The adjudicator's determination was set aside to the extent it purported to render Waiora liable because the adjudicator failed to address and decide the pleaded defence that Waiora was not a party to the construction contract; the issue is remitted to the adjudicator for determination.
17 Apr 2013
The Tribunal's decision was vitiated by an error of law because it failed to give adequate reasons explaining why, on the evidence before it (including credible and supportive humanitarian and expert evidence), deportation would not be unjust or unduly harsh; the decision is set aside and the matter remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for rehearing.