New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Indirect discrimination

Legal area

Court

4 Mar 2016

WILLIAM TAYLOR & ors v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2016] NZHC 355

Citation

[2016] 3 NZLR 111
Court

High Court

Section 268(1)(e) was interpreted to refer only to those parts of the listed provisions that prescribe 18 years as the minimum voting age (ie ss 74, 3(1) and 60(f) only so far as they prescribe age 18), so the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 was validly enacted by a simple majority; NZBORA inconsistency (s 12) of blanket disenfranchisement was acknowledged in prior judgment but does not render the Act invalid; discrimination and other NZBORA claims failed on the materiality and causation analysis and many political/ministerial complaints were non-justici…
6 Mar 2015

FEHLING v APPLEBY [2015] NZHC 388

Citation

[2015] NZHC 388
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the contested matters were either factual determinations or not questions of law capable of bona fide and serious argument and did not raise issues of sufficient general or public importance; specifically, Privacy Act victimisation is not actionable under s66 HRA and the Tribunal's conclusions on link and intent were reasonable on the evidence.
5 Feb 2015

FEHLING v APPLEBY [2015] NZHC 75

Citation

[2015] NZHC 75
Court

High Court

Appeal dismissed. Privacy Act victimisation is not actionable per se under s 66 HRA; unlawful discrimination under s 42 and indirect discrimination under s 65 do not require proof of specific subjective intent to discriminate but do require some material or evidential link between the prohibited ground and the impugned conduct; the Tribunal did not err in its approach or conclusions on the facts and its credibility-based findings were reasonable.
15 Dec 2008

SMITH V AIR NEW ZEALAND LTD HC WN CIV-2005-485-2198

Citation

openlaw-a7fe2226_f2e8_418d_bd2b_45759544f4da.pdf
Court

High Court

On the facts and law the Court held Air New Zealand did not unlawfully discriminate under s 44(1)(b) because the differential treatment resulted from neutral safety-driven controls applicable to passengers requiring items that pose equivalent aviation safety risks; a proper comparator analysis must attribute relevant operational restrictions to comparators and here those safety considerations, not disability, explained the treatment. The question of s 52 was not determinative and was left undecided as it was not necessary to resolve the appeal, though the Court concurred with the Tribunal's f…

New Zealand Case Law

WILLIAM TAYLOR & ors v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2016] NZHC 355

FEHLING v APPLEBY [2015] NZHC 388

FEHLING v APPLEBY [2015] NZHC 75

SMITH V AIR NEW ZEALAND LTD HC WN CIV-2005-485-2198