New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Irrelevant considerations

Legal area

Court

28 Nov 2022

ROWE v THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AT LEVIN [2022] NZHC 3134

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3134
Court

High Court

The adjournment was lawful: consideration of totality was relevant because the alleged Whanganui offending occurred while on bail for the Levin charges and assessing overall culpability together was within the interests of justice; any reference to pre-sentence detention was irrelevant but immaterial to the decision; there was no breach of NZBORA rights; judicial review relief was declined.
12 Aug 2021

STEVRYN HOLDINGS LTD v WAKA KOTAHI NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY [2021] NZHC 2099

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2099
Court

High Court

Grant interim relief because Stevryn demonstrated serious arguable grounds of review including potential irrelevant consideration and failure to consider remedial steps, the safety concerns were not shown to be of such immediacy or intensity as to mandate immediate cessation, and revocation taking immediate effect would render appeal and review rights nugatory; accordingly maintain the licence pending on-notice hearing and set procedural directions.
1 Aug 2018

GWYNN v NAPIER CITY COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 1943

Citation

[2018] NZAR 1410
Court

High Court

The special consultative procedure does not exclude the consultation principles in s 82 of the LGA; the Council breached its statutory consultation obligations by failing to identify, notify and sufficiently encourage participation from the Napier Christian community and employee representatives (First Union), rendering the decision unlawful and invalid and requiring it to be set aside and reconsidered under a proper SCP.
16 Mar 2017

STIRLING BLOODSTOCK LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND THOROUGHBRED RACING INCORPORATED [2017] NZHC 464

Citation

[2017]NZAR 547
Court

High Court

Article 14 does not exhaust or rigidly constrain NZTR’s broad discretionary power to refuse names; NZTR lawfully exercised that discretion when it declined 'Lip Up Fatty' and 'Rotten Culture' given contextual factors (including prior attempted name, Racing Australia’s view and meaning ascertainment); it did not err in refusing 'Rotten Culture' without awaiting Racing Australia because concurrence is only required if NZTR intended to approve; no relevant procedural or legal error was established and the judicial review application is dismissed.
30 Apr 2008

KEITH HUGH NICOLAS BERRYMAN AND ANOR V HER MAJESTY'S SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR NEW ZEALAND AND ORS HC WN CIV 2005-485-1795

Citation

openlaw-fd79ebea_545f_444f_b3e5_200f2faae992.pdf
Court

High Court

The Solicitor-General lawfully and reasonably declined to order or to apply for a new inquest; the Army's internal decision-making about disclosure and its conduct in preparing submissions was not a reviewable decision by these plaintiffs; however, given publicly available material and prior High Court and Solicitor‑General findings that Army submissions to the Coroner were incorrect or misleading, specific Coroner findings that the bridge was 'well built' and that the Army did not impinge on the failure were unsafe and are quashed; no new inquest is ordered.

New Zealand Case Law

ROWE v THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AT LEVIN [2022] NZHC 3134

STEVRYN HOLDINGS LTD v WAKA KOTAHI NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY [2021] NZHC 2099

GWYNN v NAPIER CITY COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 1943

STIRLING BLOODSTOCK LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND THOROUGHBRED RACING INCORPORATED [2017] NZHC 464

KEITH HUGH NICOLAS BERRYMAN AND ANOR V HER MAJESTY'S SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR NEW ZEALAND AND ORS HC WN CIV 2005-485-1795