New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial recusal

Legal area

Court

10 Oct 2023

PASCOE v MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION [2023] NZHC 2836

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2836
Court

High Court

The judge declined to recuse because, on the evidence and disclosure, none of his prior professional involvement for the Minister or limited contact with the LINZ legal adviser had a logical and sufficient connection to a real and not remote possibility that he would not decide the present issue impartially; the prior matters were not relevant to the legal issue before the court and there was no ongoing relationship or pecuniary interest that could reasonably raise apprehension of bias.
2 Aug 2023

GREGORY JOHN JONES v NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK FINANCE AND LEASING LIMITED [2023] NZSC 98

Citation

[2023] NZSC 98
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed appeal raised no matter of general public importance or commercial significance and had insufficient prospects of success; the Court of Appeal correctly applied summary judgment principles, found both contracts enforceable and that the applicant had no tenable defence; the conspiracy and fraud allegations were speculative and not credible; recusal was not warranted.
12 Jun 2023

WH v RH [2023] NZCA 223

Citation

[2023] NZCA 223
Court

Court of Appeal

The appealed wording of Paragraph 8 amounted to a substantive restriction on adult-to-adult contact that could only be justified as an incidental protection order under s57A; the High Court made no findings of family violence nor that Care of Children orders were insufficient, so there was no jurisdictional basis for that restriction. The Court of Appeal quashed the adult-contact restriction and replaced Paragraph 8 to prohibit only contact between the appellants and the children, leaving the consent parenting order intact.
8 Mar 2023

STOCKMAN v HEALTH & DISABILITY COMMISSIONER [2023] NZCA 48

Citation

[2023] NZCA 48
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for recall was declined because alleged errors of law or fact do not justify recall and the asserted unconscious judicial bias did not constitute the 'very special reason' necessary to recall a judgment; additionally the high threshold for leave to appeal against an interlocutory decision had not been met.
3 Nov 2020

TEINA TORU v R [2020] NZCA 541

Citation

[2020] NZCA 541
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the Court found no miscarriage of justice: the trial Judge did not improperly rely on extraneous pre-trial material or the sentence indication, properly assessed and preferred the complainant's voluntary recorded interview supported by corroborating evidence and medical evidence, correctly declared the complainant a hostile witness and permitted use of the recorded interview, the appellant's interview did not affect the verdict, and the evidence supported convictions including attempting to pervert the course of justice.
6 May 2020

Complete Construction Ltd v Siemer [2020] NZHC 915

Citation

[2020] NZHC 915
Court

High Court

Recusal refused because no reasonable apprehension of bias existed; the Associate Judge properly addressed the banned litigant issue and referral of the leave question to a High Court Judge was lawful and appropriate, procedural steps taken were within judicial duty, and nothing in the conduct would lead a fair‑minded observer to conclude the Judge could not decide the case on its merits.
16 Dec 2019

FIELDING v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 3333

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3333
Court

High Court

Because the applicant's statement of claim failed to particularise the relevant decision‑makers, the precise decisions sought to be reviewed and the jurisdictional basis for review, the Court directed the applicant to file an amended statement of claim, supporting affidavit and memorandum as to jurisdiction by a fixed date and gave the respondent a limited period to file a defence; the judge also disclosed a conflict concerning IPCA matters.
10 Mar 2015

JEREMY JAMES McGUIRE v THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE [2015] NZSC 24

Citation

[2015] NZSC 24
Court

Supreme Court

The Court held the applicant's r 43(3) application was out of time because the next working day rule does not apply to steps not taken, the appeal was therefore properly treated as abandoned, and there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice or general public importance warranting leave; the bias challenge to Harrison J was frivolous and untimely.
18 Feb 2015

JARDEN v THE EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION & ANOR CIV-2013-409-1332 [2015] NZHC 204

Citation

[2015] NZHC 204
Court

High Court

The Court admitted the factual observations of Mr Johnstone as within his experience as a loss adjuster/claims investigator but excluded specific expert conclusions beyond that expertise and required correction of deficiencies in his supplementary statement; Mr Cowie's surveying and earthquake-damage experience qualified him to give expert evidence but specified passages addressing policy interpretation and certain report paragraphs were pre-emptively excluded; the recusal application was dismissed because the material did not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias and prior case law (Pe…
26 Sept 2014

EVGENY ORLOV v THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1 [2014] NZSC 133

Citation

[2014] NZSC 133
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because either no jurisdiction exists under s 254(4) to appeal to this Court or, assuming jurisdiction, the grounds advanced do not raise matters of general or public importance, are principally case management or settled law, and there is no risk of substantial miscarriage of justice.