New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Improper purpose

Legal area

Court

28 Apr 2022

NEW ZEALAND FOREST OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC v WAIROA DISTRICT COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 761

Citation

[2022] NZHC 761
Court

High Court

The application is dismissed because the Council lawfully exercised its rating powers by assessing differentials according to land use, affordability and local wellbeing with relevant evidence before it; it did not take impermissible account of landowners' personal wealth, did not make material factual mistakes, climate change was not a mandatory consideration in the rates allocation context because it was addressed in the long-term plan, and the decision was not irrational or unreasonable.
2 Jun 2021

LEGLER v FORMANNOIJ [2021] NZHC 1271

Citation

(2021) 5 NZTR 31
Court

High Court

The Kaahu deed expressly permitted a single corporate trustee and contained clause 27.2(c) allowing a corporate trustee to exercise powers even if it directly or indirectly benefited a beneficiary-director; the evidential matrix showed the appointor acted in good faith, sought an independent trustee, obtained legal advice, and did not appoint the corporate trustee for an improper purpose, therefore the appointment was not a fraud on a power and the claim fails.
30 Jun 2020

RANGITIRA DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v SAGE and WOODS [2020] NZHC 1503

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1503
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the applicant failed to show Minister Sage was predeter-mined or disqualified by apparent bias; Ministers read and considered the Decision Report and materials, addressed and weighed the mandatory s61(2) factors including the Crown Minerals Act s1A purpose, and applied correct legal principles; officials' advice was not legally tainted and no breach of natural justice or improper purpose was established — therefore the decision to decline the access arrangement was lawful and the judicial review failed.
30 Apr 2018

YOUNG v BODY CORPORATE 85659 [2018] NZHC 849

Citation

[2018] NZHC 849
Court

High Court

Applicants lacked standing under s 210 because they were ineligible to vote due to unpaid levies; alternatively, even if standing existed, the resolutions were not unjust or inequitable: the Body Corporate reasonably treated podium window replacement as part of long-term maintenance, had legitimate reasons to retain Armstrong Downes without a new tender, s 126 did not yet operate to reallocate costs, no material breach of regulation 17, no breach of legitimate expectation or natural justice, and no improper purpose was shown.
20 Jul 2017

FITCHETT v BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NELSON COLLEGE [2017] NZHC 1684

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1684
Court

High Court

Section 50 of the Meetings Act displaces the right of attendance only for the specific meeting; the Meetings Act (s54) prevails over other enactments and, accordingly, an occupier may not lawfully use a s4 Trespass Act notice to preclude attendance at future meetings where the right of attendance under s47 has not been displaced for those future meetings; the Board's s4 notice was therefore beyond power and was quashed.
26 Feb 2016

HELSBY-KNIGHT v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS [2016] NZHC 288

Citation

[2016] NZHC 288
Court

High Court

The pleaded allegations against the Commerce Commission regarding a coordinated de facto extradition were speculative, fanciful and clearly untenable and therefore struck out; additionally the applicant's challenge to the Commissioner's fee/decision under the Official Information Act is premature because s34 requires the Ombudsman to determine the complaint before judicial review may be sought.
14 Oct 2015

REMARKABLE WINES LIMITED v CAMP CREEK LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2537

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2537
Court

High Court

Unchallenged evidence established that a registered easement (7448665.3) existed which permitted the conveyance of water from Camp Creek to the applicant's land and thus satisfied the caveatable interest claimed; because the caveat could not protect any greater registrable interest, the application to sustain the caveat was dismissed and the caveat was not sustained.
10 Jun 2013

HIGHGATE ON BROADWAY LIMITED V ARTHUR LAWRENCE MICHAEL DEVINE CA814/2011, [2013] NZCA 213

Citation

[2013] NZCA 213
Court

Court of Appeal

Costs of $4,500 awarded to respondent calculated as one and a half days at $1,990 uplifted by 50% because the appeal was brought for an improper purpose (to delay the respondent's damages claim) and was abandoned immediately before submissions, acknowledging lack of merit; order to pay from security for costs held.
18 Apr 2013

INDEPENDENT FISHERIES LTD AND CLEARWATER LAND HOLDINGS LTD v MINISTER FOR CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY SC 15/2013

Citation

SC 15/2013
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal directed to the reasons of the Court of Appeal rather than to its decision, the applicants effectively seek an advisory opinion on the Minister's statutory powers, and any relevant future decisions by the Minister can be challenged in the usual way.
7 Jun 2012

MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION V SEATON COA CA360/2011

Citation

COA CA360/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the Minister is empowered under the PWA to acquire land indirectly required for a Government work; the easements were objectively reasonably necessary to enable the SH1 widening and therefore were 'required'; the acquisition was not for an improper purpose and the High Court declaration quashing the notice relating to the easements was incorrect.