New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Import health standards

Legal area

Court

27 Jun 2018

STRATHBOSS KIWIFRUIT LIMITED v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2018] NZHC 1559

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1559
Court

High Court

MAF owed a duty of care to orchardists and others with sufficient proprietary rights in vines and crops to take reasonable care in pre-border permit decisions and to avoid causing physical damage to property and consequent financial loss; no duty was owed to Seeka as a post-harvest operator for relational economic loss. MAF breached duty at the pre-border stage by failing to take reasonable care in its review and permit decision-making (notably the PHEL/Card review process and failure to obtain appropriate risk sign-off and consultation). On the balance of probabilities the Court found the Ne…
12 Jun 2013

THE NEW ZEALAND PORK INDUSTRY BOARD v THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2013] NZSC 58

Citation

[2013] NZSC 58
Court

Supreme Court

The Court determined that, on the material before it, an interim restraint was warranted to preserve the status quo and prevent potential biosecurity harm; accordingly it restrained the Ministry and its inspectors from granting biosecurity clearances under ss 26–28 for consumer ready cuts of raw pork covered by the specified import health standards pending determination of the appeal.
31 May 2013

THE NEW ZEALAND PORK INDUSTRY BOARD v THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE MINISTRY OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2013] NZSC 53

Citation

[2013] NZSC 53
Court

Supreme Court

The Court granted interim relief because, notwithstanding arguments about the status quo and that appeal rights would not be rendered nugatory by refusal, it was necessary to preserve the appellant's position pending further statutory processes given the imminence of the fixture and that no pork had yet been imported under the disputed standards.
18 Feb 2013

THE NEW ZEALAND PORK INDUSTRY BOARD V THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY COA CA282/2012

Citation

COA CA282/2012
Court

Court of Appeal

The Director-General complied with ss 22 and 22A by receiving the independent panel report, commissioning and taking account of further work recommended by the panel (via the EWG and external peer review), and thereafter determining the issue in dispute with reasons; the panel is advisory and does not convert the process into a dispute resolution mechanism obliging the Director-General to adopt the consulted party's position, and the court will not review merits of the scientific risk assessment where statutory process and consultation obligations have been met. Therefore the appeal is dismis…
2 Jul 2012

THE NEW ZEALAND PORK INDUSTRY BOARD V THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY HC WN CIV-2011-485-719

Citation

openlaw-27d766a1_1b22_41af_86b6_e07763e7487a.pdf
Court

High Court

Because credible expert disagreement made the risk of PRRS incursion at least objectively arguable and because the balance of convenience favoured preventing potentially serious and irreversible harm to New Zealand pig herds and the appellant's rights pending the Court of Appeal, the court continued interim relief restraining biosecurity clearances for specified raw pork imports until the Court of Appeal hearing or further order; concerns about delay and trade obligations were addressed by requiring the appellant to prosecute the appeal with vigour and reserving liberty to seek directions.
3 May 2012

THE NEW ZEALAND PORK INDUSTRY BOARD V THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY HC WN CIV-2011-485-719

Citation

openlaw-6be70301_a9ed_4243_bcc1_ec4c380534c9.pdf
Court

High Court

The Director-General complied with ss 22 and 22A: he lawfully took into account the IRP report, pursued additional work the IRP itself contemplated (EWG and further modelling), considered the IRP findings and recommendations, and made a timely, reasoned determination; the post-IRP processes and officials' continued involvement did not amount to procedural unfairness, denial of consultation rights, bias or unlawful pre-determination, and judicial review will not substitute the court's view for a science-based regulatory judgment.
10 Aug 2011

THE NEW ZEALAND PORK INDUSTRY BOARD v THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY HC WN CIV-2011-485-719

Citation

openlaw-4b214aba_bbc7_4c2f_aa7c_3367f135b958.pdf
Court

High Court

The applicant's initial affidavit was inadequate to support interim orders in a biosecurity judicial review because cogent scientific evidence on probability, extent and reversibility of risk was necessary; the applicant would likely have failed if pressed on 16 May; consequently costs on the interlocutory stage should be deferred and fixed after trial, with the judge noting that if fixed now he would have allowed category 2 band C with disbursements for two expert affidavits and one junior counsel.
25 May 2011

THE NEW ZEALAND PORK INDUSTRY BOARD v THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY HC WN CIV-2011-485-719

Citation

openlaw-01789218_66ec_4393_ac29_eae223314b05.pdf
Court

High Court

The court granted interim restraint because the Board demonstrated a good arguable case that (i) the Director-General delayed and improperly amalgamated the independent panel's findings with subsequent work contrary to s22A(3), (ii) reliance on advice from a CTO who had contributed to the challenged draft standard was arguable procedural impropriety, and (iii) a legitimate expectation of consultation on the decisive EpiX-Analytics report existed; coupled with genuine scientific dispute and rebuttal evidence, those factors made interim orders reasonably necessary to preserve the Board's positi…
25 May 2011

THE NEW ZEALAND PORK INDUSTRY BOARD v THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY HC WN CIV-2011-485-719

Citation

openlaw-28ebec25_4c7c_4738_ae7c_a15f136263d3.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the Crown sought, and the applicant did not oppose, a narrowing clarification reflecting that the new import health standards affect processed pork, the court properly varied the interim injunction to insert the words 'consumer ready cuts of raw' before 'pork product' to confine the restraint to those goods and avoid overreach.
27 Mar 2007

THE NATIONAL BEEKEEPERS' ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY HC WN CIV 2006-485-2845

Citation

openlaw-1af3fd18_6916_415d_b62c_059fa5444fd0.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiff has an arguable statutory interpretation case and there is a real risk that continued imports would render an appeal moot; accordingly an interim declaration suspending the Import Health Standard pending a timely and diligently pursued appeal is justified, but honey from West Australia is excluded because there is no evidence P.alvei is present there.