New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Joinder and intervention

Legal area

Court

23 Jun 2020

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v LIVINGSPACE PROPERTIES LIMITED (in rec and in liq) [2020] NZHC 1434

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1434
Court

High Court

The review was allowed in part: the Court rescinded the Associate Judge's directions to serve and permit non-parties to appear because the original s 266 production order bound the respondent and, through estoppel, RFD only; the production order did not extend to the unrelated non-parties and further directions seeking their documents were outside the scope of the reserved leave and must be pursued by proper notice or fresh application; RFD is estopped from relitigating the production order; the liquidator was given 20 working days to file a narrowed amended request limited to documents in Bu…
9 Apr 2020

ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATION v MINISTER OF FISHERIES [2020] NZHC 741

Citation

[2020] NZHC 741
Court

High Court

The Court held that Fisheries Inshore and Te Ohu should be joined as respondents because their interests were sufficiently affected by the judicial review such that fairness and the legitimate interest in preserving appeal rights justified joinder; the scope of their participation could be controlled and the joinder was necessary to protect quota and ACE interests arising from the Minister's decision on TAC/TACC.
25 Oct 2019

RONGOTAI INVESTMENTS LIMITED v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 2742

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2742
Court

High Court

The application for a separate expedited hearing of the legal question was declined because the disputed statutory issue (interpretation of "land value" and s21) is not a discrete jurisdictional point separable from the valuation exercise; it is fact‑dependent and requires expert evidence and market context, the proposed process would cause delay and prejudice to sequentially scheduled tribunal hearings, and parties had agreed a timetable to resolve related objections. Leave to cross-appeal out of time was granted to Wellington International Airport because it is a "person affected" under s26…
16 Mar 2017

BLEAKLEY & ORS v THE REGISTRAR OF FRIENDLY SOCIETIES AND CREDIT UNIONS [2017] NZHC 471

Citation

[2017] NZHC 471
Court

High Court

The Registrar was wrongly named as respondent and should be struck out though he retains a limited right to be heard; Westforce has a direct interest but should pursue its own out‑of‑time appeal which will be managed and heard with the present appeal rather than being joined here; First Credit Union should be granted leave to intervene with limited participation rights because it has a prior participatory role and its involvement will assist the Court.
9 May 2014

INDEPENDENT FISHERIES LIMITED v THE MINISTER FOR CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY & ORS [2014] NZHC 959

Citation

[2014] NZHC 959
Court

High Court

The Court ordered tailored discovery and a brief affidavit from the Minister to particularise the reasons for the 6 December 2013 decision (to identify documents containing reasons and any additional reasons), joined the responsible agencies as second respondents with rights to file evidence and submissions, refused to join Christchurch International Airport Limited as a full respondent but allowed it to intervene limited to the issue of relief, and set a timetable for discovery, pleadings, affidavits and a three‑day fixture commencing 15 September 2014; these measures were necessary to ensur…
28 May 2012

INDEPENDENT FISHERIES LTD V THE MINISTER FOR CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY HC CHCH CIV-2012-409-500

Citation

openlaw-7f1ae33a_ba01_4492_9d91_c3e94957ea1c.pdf
Court

High Court

Where judicial review challenges a statutory decision and urgent implementation is occurring, the Court must balance the interests of justice and expedition by joining only those parties necessary to decide the review and protect rights to effective relief; the decisionmaker remains the primary respondent, background evidence may be called by the decisionmaker, and joinder may be limited to issues of relief to avoid relitigation of merits. Applying those principles the Court ordered limited joinder and intervention and a strict timetable to preserve expedition and fairness.
19 Dec 2006

GOLDEN BAY MARINE FARMERS CONSORTIUM LIMITED V TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL HC WN CIV-2005-442-451

Citation

openlaw-d0f62215_9cac_4f3d_87b9_f54652ed8596.pdf
Court

High Court

Joinder was granted: the Challenger Group has sufficient direct interests distinct from marine farmers and no existing party adequately represents commercial fishers; High Court Rules r97 and, alternatively, r9 and r425 together with the Court's inherent jurisdiction permit joinder as defendant/respondent or as interested party/intervener, enabling the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate the issues; no prejudice shown to warrant refusal.

New Zealand Case Law

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v LIVINGSPACE PROPERTIES LIMITED (in rec and in liq) [2020] NZHC 1434

ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATION v MINISTER OF FISHERIES [2020] NZHC 741

RONGOTAI INVESTMENTS LIMITED v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 2742

BLEAKLEY & ORS v THE REGISTRAR OF FRIENDLY SOCIETIES AND CREDIT UNIONS [2017] NZHC 471

INDEPENDENT FISHERIES LIMITED v THE MINISTER FOR CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY & ORS [2014] NZHC 959

INDEPENDENT FISHERIES LTD V THE MINISTER FOR CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY HC CHCH CIV-2012-409-500

GOLDEN BAY MARINE FARMERS CONSORTIUM LIMITED V TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL HC WN CIV-2005-442-451