New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Emergency powers

Legal area

Court

2 Nov 2021

BORROWDALE v DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HEALTH [2021] NZCA 520

Citation

[2021] NZCA 520
Court

Court of Appeal

s70(1)(f) and (m) of the Health Act 1956 are broad enough to authorise the nationwide closure, congregation and isolation/quarantine orders challenged; limits on NZBORA ss16,17,18 arising from those Orders were justified under s5 in the emergency context; the Director-General did not unlawfully delegate the core decision on what constituted 'essential businesses' when he adopted and issued the Order, although some later ministerial exemptions may have been ultra vires.
19 Mar 2020

R v EKEROMA and FATU [2020] NZHC 565

Citation

[2020] NZHC 565
Court

High Court

The application to discharge the jury was dismissed because there was insufficient evidence that the COVID-19 situation had the requisite immediacy and impact to constitute the statutory 'emergency' justifying discharge, and the Chief Justice's advisory suspension of new jury trials did not, of itself, justify revisiting the earlier decision to refuse discharge; absent direct evidence of juror incapacity to adhere to oath or immediate risk, minimal interference with an ongoing jury was required.
19 Jan 2017

QUAKE OUTCASTS v MINISTER FOR CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY [2017] NZHC 22

Citation

[2017] NZHC 22
Court

High Court

The applicants are ordered to pay the respondents' costs because the general principle that costs follow the event applies; the public interest exception does not apply where the challenge was pursued to obtain increased financial benefit after accepting Crown offers; costs are fixed at category 3B with certification for two counsel and the applicants must pay $55,605 plus disbursements to be fixed by the registrar exclusive of GST.
2 Oct 2007

THOMPSON V SOUTHLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL HC INV CIV-2007-425-000231

Citation

openlaw-d159dbf0_2b66_4987_98d4_ba9e15959eef.pdf
Court

High Court

Sections 129 and 130 of the Building Act 2004 operate so that the Chief Executive of a territorial authority may issue a warrant and take immediate action to remove immediate danger without prior District Court approval, and must thereafter apply to the District Court for retrospective confirmation under s130; on the facts there was sufficient evidence of immediate danger (severe wind warning, loose roofing iron, photographic and inspection reports) so the warrant was properly issued and its confirmation was correctly made; owner remains liable for costs recoverable and chargeable on the land…

New Zealand Case Law

BORROWDALE v DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HEALTH [2021] NZCA 520

R v EKEROMA and FATU [2020] NZHC 565

QUAKE OUTCASTS v MINISTER FOR CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY [2017] NZHC 22

THOMPSON V SOUTHLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL HC INV CIV-2007-425-000231