New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial review of administrative decisions

Legal area

Court

22 Oct 2021

LAWYERS FOR CLIMATE ACTION NZ INCORPORATED v THE CLIMATE CHANGE COMMISSION [2021] NZHC 2832

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2832
Court

High Court

Pleadings may be published now because open justice and freedom of expression outweigh any risk to the orderly and fair administration of justice and no privacy or confidentiality issues arose; however publication of affidavit and other evidence before the hearing is not ordered because timing affects public understanding and open justice has greater weight during the substantive hearing, so evidence and submissions may be published only from the commencement of the hearing and subject to directions of the trial judge.
5 Mar 2018

CROTHERS v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2018] NZCA 35

Citation

[2018] NZCA 35
Court

Court of Appeal

There was no arguable question of law for further appeal because the High Court and District Court applied materially the same test (assessing whether core tasks can be performed with reasonable adaptation) and the determinations turned on uncontested factual findings that the applicant could perform the core tasks of his pre‑injury employment by 8 September 2011; accordingly leave to appeal is declined.
12 Dec 2016

SINGH v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2016] NZHC 3001

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3001
Court

High Court

The Commissioner lawfully conducted the reconsideration, applied the two‑step statutory test for serious hardship, considered relevant financial information and was entitled to infer undeclared income from the absence of evidence of living expense transactions; there was no breach of natural justice or apparent bias in the appointment of the decision‑maker, and prior non‑compliance was only relied upon appropriately in the discretionary write‑off stage; consequently the decision to decline financial relief was legally justified and the judicial review application was dismissed.
31 Oct 2016

Pinker v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 291
Court

District Court

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to produce contrary specialist evidence or demonstrate clear flaws in the specialist reports of Dr Park and Ms Lennan; consequently the Court upheld the ACC's finding that the mental injury was not materially caused by the 2009 ankle injury.
29 May 2013

Scragg v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 152
Court

District Court

The Corporation's refusal was based on an uninvestigated and ultimately unfounded premise that the appellant would become vocationally independent; consequently the discretion was not properly exercised. The review decision and the respondent's refusal were quashed and the matter remitted for a fresh primary decision with up‑to‑date information and full reasons if funding is refused again.
19 Jun 2012

Tairi v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 204
Court

District Court

The 23 July 1999 reviewer decision that the appellant's fibromyalgia was caused or contributed to by her employment is binding on ACC under s147 and, not having been appealed, prevents ACC from suspending entitlements based on later medical opinions; accordingly the suspension was quashed and entitlements reinstated.
3 Nov 2010

AVENTIS PHARMA SA AND ANOR V PHARMACO (NZ) LIMITED AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2010-404-001670

Citation

openlaw-d0a7c417_9aaf_4090_a914_ec4c86e8b193.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court declined to consolidate or order the proceedings heard together because the judicial review and patent proceedings raise discrete issues with limited factual and legal overlap, the judicial review was ready for a short hearing sooner and could be determinative of the patent proceeding, and Aventis was adequately protected by the availability of damages given the impending patent expiry and prior refusal of interim injunction; accordingly the JR was to be given an early fixture and the patent proceedings to continue their own timetable.
29 Jun 2010

G E FREE NZ IN FOOD AND THE ENVIRONMENT INCORPORATED V AGRESEARCH LIMITED AND ANOR SC 38/2010

Citation

SC 38/2010
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the statutory scheme (notably s29(1)(c) and the powers in ss48 and 58) contemplates that questions of sufficiency of information are for ERMA to address in its substantive s45 decision-making, and it is only in rare cases that a court should review insufficiency pre-emptively; the present case was not such a case.
30 Mar 2010

VODAFONE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED SC 4/2010

Citation

SC 4/2010
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was granted because the central question—whether the Commerce Commission complied with the applicable statutory provisions when making its determination—raised an issue of statutory interpretation and public importance suitable for this Court's review.
16 Dec 2008

MILLER AND ANOR V THE NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2004-485-1460

Citation

openlaw-824cde15_5efe_4b70_a636_0bb686f06229.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed all claims. The Parole Board is an independent statutory body under the Parole Act but is not required to possess the full institutional independence of a court for ICCPR art 9(4) purposes; statutory appointment, support, operational and remuneration provisions are lawful; asserted systemic defects (appointments, training, structured decision making, executive council, guides, dissent policy, HRX and treatment timing) did not establish unlawful lack of independence or breaches warranting relief; individual challenges to parole and recall decisions failed on the facts or we…