25 Oct 2023
The court dismissed the application because none of the asserted causes of action succeeded; the applicant failed to establish reviewable error, jurisdictional defect or breach of procedural fairness sufficient to warrant relief.
5 Dec 2019
Leave to intervene granted in a limited form: the Rūnanga may file Dr Tau's affidavit and the Rūnanga's written submissions will be before the Court, but no oral submissions are permitted. The court held intervention should be restricted because the core legal question (classification and notification of change of use/amalgamation) would not determine or alter the Rūnanga's substantive legal rights in the water, the application was late, intervention risked widening scope and prejudicing parties, and the applicant's submissions substantially overlapped the Rūnanga's, so limited written involv…
7 Nov 2019
The decision was dismissed because the accepted evidence established the applicant had only one PRN, there was no factual basis that the charge had been part‑heard or that relevant evidence was unavailable, Visiting Justice Humphrey had jurisdiction and adequate evidence to decide the matter, and there was no appearance of bias or denial of natural justice.
15 Aug 2018
The proceeding was struck out for want of prosecution because the applicant failed to attend or comply with timetables and there was no adequate explanation; substantively the material disclosed no realistic prospect of success as the evidence did not establish a trust or irrevocable legitimate expectation preventing disposal, many affidavits were inadmissible, and the Council was the appropriate sole respondent; therefore interlocutory joinder of the Mayor was refused, named councillors removed, undertakings released and costs awarded to the Council.
4 Aug 2017
The Regulations were validly promulgated under s 360(1)(h) of the RMA to exempt discharges under s 15; the Trust's fence met the predator-proof standard so the Trust could rely on the exemption; s 13(1)(d) (deposit in beds) is a distinct, narrower concept directed at direct physical interference with riverbeds and does not overlap so as to require duplicate consents for the same discharge; no material error of law or fact, procedural unfairness, or unreasonableness was established and the plaintiff's judicial review and declaratory claims are dismissed.
13 Jun 2011
The adjudicator lawfully exercised her statutory discretion, considered all relevant evidence (both original and later supervisor evaluations, references, TESL certificate and mentoring statements), did not act with bias or procedural unfairness, and reached a reasonable evaluative conclusion within the scope of the Legal Services Act 2000 that the applicant did not meet the criteria for appointment to the duty solicitor roster; judicial review fails.
19 Oct 2010
The Parole Board lawfully relied on the psychological and other material under s117(1) and correctly applied the s107(3) test assessing risk to the community; identified factual inaccuracies and hearsay did not produce a legal error warranting judicial review or overturning the Board's decision; the judicial review application is dismissed.
9 Oct 2009
The High Court held the District Court did not err in law: the Judge reasonably accepted counsel's evidence, supported by the handwritten schedule and explanations, that the defendant had been informed of the s66 jury election in respect of the 18 charges; credibility findings were open to the Judge and did not amount to an aberrant decision tainting the s75 exercise; accordingly refusal to grant a re-hearing was lawful and convictions stand.
22 May 2008
The Privacy Commissioner validly issued the s91(4) notice: s91(4) applies to any person, a barrister is not within the 'Court' exclusion to the definition of agency, and there is no applicable barristerial immunity to resist a statutory requirement to provide information; the decision was not vitiated by mistake of fact, failure to consider relevant matters, unreasonableness or breach of natural justice and no NZBORA s27 breach was established; judicial review relief is refused.