New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial bias/recusal

Legal area

Court

11 Oct 2023

GREGORY JOHN JONES v NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK FINANCE AND LEASING LIMITED [2023] NZSC 133

Citation

[2023] NZSC 133
Court

Supreme Court

The Court refused leave to adduce further evidence because the material sought to be admitted merely relitigated factual matters already considered and was neither fresh nor cogent; recusal was refused because the applicant's allegations were unsupported, speculative and did not meet the Saxmere threshold for disqualification; recall was refused because the applicant failed to identify exceptional circumstances or any procedural or substantive error causing a miscarriage of justice, and the application impermissibly sought to relitigate the leave decision.
4 Dec 2019

NGAWEKETUHIMATA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 3176

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3176
Court

High Court

No miscarriage of justice was shown: the judge's prior sentence indication and courtroom interventions did not create an appearance of bias to a fair‑minded observer; the defendant's brief absence caused no prejudice (counsel was present and the evidence in his absence did not harm his defence); the late addition of charges and late notice of transcripts did not produce unfairness and the transcripts were lawfully disclosed under the Corrections Act; the trial judge gave adequate, articulated reasons for preferring the complainant's evidence and rejecting the defendant's; and the final senten…
26 Feb 2015

DAIMLER AG v SANY GROUP CO LTD [2015] NZHC 290

Citation

[2015] NZHC 290
Court

High Court

Because the issues in the scheduled appeal substantially mirrored issues the judge had already decided and an appeal on those findings was pending, a fair-minded informed observer could reasonably apprehend a real possibility the judge might not be impartial; therefore the judge must recuse and the scheduled hearing was vacated pending resolution of the related Court of Appeal appeal.
26 Sept 2006

MIESSEN V R SC 59/2006

Citation

SC 59/2006
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to identify any arguable ground meeting s13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003; the issues were fact specific as found by the jury and Court of Appeal; complaints about counsel lacked supporting affidavit evidence or waiver of privilege; and no miscarriage of justice or justified basis for recusal was shown.

New Zealand Case Law

GREGORY JOHN JONES v NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK FINANCE AND LEASING LIMITED [2023] NZSC 133

NGAWEKETUHIMATA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 3176

DAIMLER AG v SANY GROUP CO LTD [2015] NZHC 290

MIESSEN V R SC 59/2006