11 Dec 2023
The short one‑week delay by a lay litigant with an understandable explanation, combined with absence of prejudice and the view that the proposed appeal was not clearly hopeless (given JR can be available despite an appeal route and r 5.35B should be used sparingly), meant the interests of justice required an extension of time under r 43(2).
10 Nov 2023
When a public decision under NZBORA may limit a protected right the decision‑maker must, as a matter of procedure, identify the engagement of the right and engage with whether the limit is reasonable under s5; failure to do so is an error of law. The Director‑General did not undertake the required NZBORA assessment in issuing s116E fluoridation directions and the second cause of action succeeds.
10 Oct 2023
The delegation instrument validly delegated the s 18(1)(a) Public Works Act power because the instrument, read as a whole, identified s 28 of the State Sector Act in its preamble and no statutory form requirement mandated repeating the empowering provision in the operative clause; the omission was immaterial to meaning and effect, and even if it were a plain drafting error it could be corrected by interpretation; accordingly the delegation and authorised sub-delegations were lawful and the judicial review application was dismissed.
5 Oct 2023
The pleadings did not disclose any reasonably arguable cause of action appropriate for determination by judicial review; they sought to enforce criminal and tort remedies and to substitute merits-based decisions rather than challenge the legality of a public decision-maker's exercise of power, and therefore the proceedings were struck out under r 15.1(1)(a) High Court Rules.
21 Jul 2023
The proceeding was struck out because it did not identify any exercise of a statutory power subject to judicial review and, on its face, constituted a plain abuse of the court's process; accordingly the claim was struck out under the High Court Rules.
30 Nov 2022
Leave to cross-examine the deponent Ms Dayle McKibbon was granted because the Prison Director, who made the challenged decisions, was incapacitated and unavailable to provide evidence, making the deponent's recommendations and reasons central to testing the lawfulness and reasonableness of the segregation orders; cross-examination was limited, tightly focused on identified factual disputes linked to pleaded grounds, and subject to strict time and case-management directions.
27 Oct 2022
Costs awarded to the respondents; public interest did not justify nominal costs; the proceedings were categorised as category 3 given their complexity and significance; no uplift for refusal to accept settlement offer because no additional legal expenditure resulted, but steps 23 and 24 (filing opposition to interlocutory application and preparing written submissions) are to be assessed at time band C rather than B to reflect the additional work of three respondents; costs to be calculated accordingly.
27 Sept 2022
Interim relief was refused: although applicants established a position to preserve and their judicial review grounds were arguable, the Court exercised its discretion against granting interim orders because the public and private repercussions of interrupting a time‑sensitive national rebalancing of staff and prisoners (acute system‑wide staffing shortages, safety risks, interdependent logistics) outweighed the preservation interest; Corrections' decisions were prima facie within statutory powers and responsive to urgent operational requirements.
5 May 2022
The court confirmed the challenged redactions because evidence established the redacted passages recorded or formed part of communications made in the course of and for the purpose of a solicitor giving legal advice (including summaries of the solicitor's tentative conclusions and contextual material prompting legal opinion), and therefore were protected by legal advice privilege.
4 Nov 2021
The first certificate (13 December 2018, reissued 31 January 2019) was quashed because it was issued on manifestly inadequate information contrary to the duty under s139 RMA to have sufficient information to compare the proposal with plan rules; however the airstrip is a permitted Service Activity (alternatively Commercial) under the District Plan and the Council's later certificate was valid provided compliance with the Plan's noise standards (r4.9.11); councils should seek leave before actively participating in judicial review of their own RMA decisions.