New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Judicial review standard of review

  • 22 Dec 2023

    GUO v HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS [2023] NZHC 3883

    Citation
    [2023] NZHC 3883
    Court
    High Court

    The High Court held the Tribunal acted within its statutory powers and applied the correct legal tests; the applicant failed to discharge the burden to establish grounds to go behind PwC's affidavit of documents under r 8.19; PwC provided credible, cogent evidence explaining why certain electronic documents were irretrievable; there was no error of law, procedural impropriety or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Tribunal's decision, and the judicial review application was dismissed.

    • Discovery orders
    • Affidavit of documents
    • Legal professional privilege
    • Judicial review standard of review
    • Procedural fairness
    • Privacy act requests

  • 14 Dec 2017

    MCMILLAN v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 3148

    Citation
    [2017] NZHC 3148
    Court
    High Court

    Council's decision to process the application on a non-notified basis and grant consent was lawful: the omission in the applicant's AEE was effectively compensated by contemporaneous material (neighbour's planner's letter) that identified the neighbours' concerns; the Council independently and adequately applied the permitted baseline and assessed effects beyond it as less than minor; relevant ODP and PDP provisions and transport issues were considered; decision was not unreasonable; judicial review dismissed.

    • Notification of resource consent
    • Affected persons (s95e)
    • Permitted baseline
    • Adequacy of aee (schedule 4)
    • Procedural impropriety
    • Judicial review standard of review

  • 8 Dec 2015

    SINGH v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2015] NZCA 592

    Citation
    [2015] NZCA 592
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    Section 177, in context and as amended post-Ye/Huang, restricts judicial review to ensuring the immigration officer complied with the limited recording obligations and to Wednesbury-type unreasonableness; the officer need not give reasons and cross-examination is unnecessary unless clearly required for fair disposal; the best interests of a citizen child must be considered but do not convert s 177 review into a full proportionality/correctness inquiry.

    • S 177 immigration act 2009
    • Cancellation of deportation orders
    • Judicial review standard of review
    • Cross-examination in judicial review
    • Best interests of the child (uncroc)
    • Wednesbury unreasonableness

  • 23 Sept 2015

    RITCHIE v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2015] NZHC 2305

    Citation
    [2015] NZHC 2305
    Court
    High Court

    The Court held ACC lawfully required the claimant to undergo a s 107 vocational independence assessment because (1) there was reasonable evidential and clinical basis for concluding the claimant was "likely to achieve vocational independence"—the Branch Medical Advisor's file review relying on a recent IMA provided a rational basis—and (2) the claimant had completed the vocational rehabilitation services ACC was liable to provide under the agreed IRP, so s 110(3)(a) and (b) were satisfied.

    • Vocational independence assessment
    • Section 110 acc act
    • Individual rehabilitation plan (irp)
    • Statutory interpretation
    • Judicial review standard of review

  • 19 Apr 2007

    REA V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2007-485-0162

    Citation
    openlaw-cdd8f1e8_7917_41c6_9c52_f51ee502f8e3.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The Council's decision to treat the application as non-notified and to give no notice to the plaintiff was unlawful and is quashed because the Council did not have sufficient evidence to be satisfied under s 93 that adverse effects would be minor and erred in concluding under s 94 that the plaintiff would not be adversely affected (the material failed to address sunlight/shading, bulk and dominance, traffic and noise adequately); the matter must be reconsidered and the plaintiff must be treated as potentially adversely affected for purposes of s 94 if the Council again seeks non-notified proc…

    • Notification of resource consent applications
    • Ss 93 and 94 rma
    • Adverse effects assessment
    • De minimis
    • Judicial review standard of review