New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial review - unreasonableness

Legal area

Court

5 Apr 2023

AUCKLAND PRIDE v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2023] NZHC 758

Citation

[2023] 2 NZLR 651
Court

High Court

The interim application was dismissed because, on balance, the applicants had at most a limited position to preserve and the grant of the relief sought would have required the Court to usurp the Minister's statutory discretion under s16 or to make mandatory positive orders against the Crown without hearing the affected person; given the high statutory threshold, natural justice concerns and the balance of convenience, interim mandatory relief was inappropriate.
14 Nov 2017

HUDSON v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2017] NZHC 2790

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2790
Court

High Court

The Court declined to order costs against the applicant and held that costs should lie where they fall because the applicant's challenge was not vexatious or frivolous, indemnity costs were inappropriate where no improper conduct occurred, and practical considerations (long-term prisoner unlikely to pay) and limited merit weighed against awarding costs.
20 Jun 2017

HOSPITALITY NEW ZEALAND, CANTERBURY BRANCH v CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 1360

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1360
Court

High Court

The Council was required to have regard to the objectives and policies of the district plan when reconsidering the PLAP on ARLA direction and the term "district plan" in the SSAA includes a proposed plan/decision where that proposed plan/decision (here Decision 43 of the CRDP) is sufficiently developed, reasoned and directly relevant; Decision 43 should have been brought to account, the Council did not have regard to it in the Reconsideration Decision of 29 September 2016, and those parts of that decision are set aside with a direction to reconsider having regard to the CRDP and Decision 43;…
31 Aug 2016

GONZALEZ v DENTAL COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 2047

Citation

[2016] NZAR 1444
Court

High Court

Given the CRC's detailed findings of pervasive competence deficits and expert evidence that supervision and restricted practice would not reliably protect patients, the Dental Council's decision to require an approved competence programme and passing of the NZDREX, and to maintain interim suspension pending compliance, was within the range of reasonable responses by the regulator; judicial review dismissed, but Council should reconsider supervised return to practice if presented with new evidence after remediation.
4 Jun 2015

WATSON v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2015] NZHC 1227

Citation

(2015) 10 HRNZ 505
Court

High Court

The Chief Executive's decision to prohibit face-to-face interviews was unreasonable because it restricted the mode of communication without any rational connection to the stated aim of protecting victims: written communication remained permitted and could produce the same distress; prisoners retain a qualified s14 right to seek media interviews to raise alleged miscarriages of justice; accordingly the decision was quashed and remitted for reconsideration.
19 Dec 2008

LOU HUNAARA TANGAERE V THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2008-485-1177

Citation

openlaw-2c7459d8_5d42_4cfe_90eb_2fe2979d5e00.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 4A of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908 does not create an absolute or mandatory right to an oral hearing for interlocutory urgency applications; 'inquiry' refers primarily to the substantive inquiry and s4A(3) clarifies representation rather than mandating oral procedure; the Treaty of Waitangi Act Schedule 2 expressly grants the Tribunal discretion to regulate procedure and therefore declining the requested oral hearing was lawful and not unreasonable.
23 Sept 2004

TE RUNANGA O MURIWHENUA INCORPORATED V TREATY OF WAITANGI FISHERIES COMMISSION And Anor SC SC CIV 8/04

Citation

openlaw-6c6a8c97_a75c_40dd_8b32_2021e8f0bb88.pdf
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the issues were fact-specific, did not raise matters of general or public importance under s13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003, and enactment of the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 rendered the proposed appeal futile and susceptible to being an impermissible collateral attack; therefore leave was not granted.

New Zealand Case Law

AUCKLAND PRIDE v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2023] NZHC 758

HUDSON v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2017] NZHC 2790

HOSPITALITY NEW ZEALAND, CANTERBURY BRANCH v CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 1360

GONZALEZ v DENTAL COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 2047

WATSON v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2015] NZHC 1227

LOU HUNAARA TANGAERE V THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2008-485-1177

TE RUNANGA O MURIWHENUA INCORPORATED V TREATY OF WAITANGI FISHERIES COMMISSION And Anor SC SC CIV 8/04