New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hardship assessment

Legal area

Court

8 Jun 2022

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v WONG [2022] NZHC 1337

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1337
Court

High Court

The court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the $24,000 was the product of significant criminal activity (drug dealing) based on the context of discovery (drugs, scales, packaging), corroborating text messages, lack of a credible legitimate source given the respondent's benefit status, and absence of hardship or competing claims; accordingly forfeiture of the full $24,000 is ordered.
18 Jan 2008

PARA FRANCHISING LIMITED V LEGAL AID REVIEW PANEL AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-6601

Citation

openlaw-9f814b5a_9354_450d_8340_627752458608.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 41 confers on the Legal Services Agency a discretionary power both whether to make any payment and as to the quantum of any payment; however the Agency's decision to pay $20,000 was set aside because it failed to take into account all relevant circumstances (notably the Agency's own error regarding contributions which materially affected the prejudice to Para) and the disparity with the approach to an earlier related claim made the payment arbitrary; the decision is remitted to the Agency to re-determine in accordance with s 41.
2 Dec 2005

REECE V SOLICITOR-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND HC CHCH CIV 2005 409 174

Citation

openlaw-1ffc8b98_ae6c_43a5_8cf4_49b5334e9fb9.pdf
Court

High Court

Application refused for 9 Kingfisher Lane because evidence and photographs demonstrate significant involvement of that property in the cannabis operation making it highly vulnerable to forfeiture; application granted for net proceeds of sale of 46A Rockinghorse Road but $15,000 of the net proceeds must be retained to reflect the reasonable prospect and likely quantum of a pecuniary penalty order.
17 Oct 2005

FAATAFA V THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION HC CHCH CIV-2005-409-001494

Citation

openlaw-51227d52_8264_4b8a_8b86_772f6bf108cb.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court held there was no error of law: the Tribunal had regard to the matters in s105(2) including mitigating factors, was not overwhelmed by the seriousness of the offence, and correctly concluded that while deportation would cause considerable hardship it did not meet the statutory threshold of being unjust or unduly harsh ('considerable hardship' is less than 'unduly harsh'). The appeal was dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v WONG [2022] NZHC 1337

PARA FRANCHISING LIMITED V LEGAL AID REVIEW PANEL AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-6601

REECE V SOLICITOR-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND HC CHCH CIV 2005 409 174

FAATAFA V THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION HC CHCH CIV-2005-409-001494