New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial review standards

Legal area

Court

27 Aug 2021

AGPAC LTD v HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 2222

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2222
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed the application. It held HCC's development contributions policies and decisions were, overall, lawful and within the statutory framework: the materiality limb and five HUE filter for remissions are permissible policy choices, site credits are acceptable and HCC removed the absolute no-refund provision so no general relief was required, inclusion of canopies in GFA is a permissible proxy for on-site activity, expenditure on plans/models may be treated as capital expenditure attributable to infrastructure delivery and therefore recoverable, using bedroom-based proxies for re…
17 Mar 2021

ENTERPRISE MIRAMAR PENINSULA INC v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 549 [17 March 2021]

Citation

[2021] NZHC 549
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the judicial review: the Panel had sufficient probative material (including expert reports) to conclude transportation effects could be accommodated and be no more than minor in context, and to be satisfied under s34(2) that sufficient and appropriate roading infrastructure could be provided subject to conditions; the Panel applied s34(1) and the prescribed weighing hierarchy correctly and any arguable errors were not material to the outcome.
7 Aug 2020

NZ SOUTHERN RIVERS SOCIETY INCORPORATED v GORE DISTRICT COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 1996

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1996
Court

High Court

The Society failed to demonstrate that the Commissioner treated Fish and Game's approval as substituting for angler views, failed to take relevant considerations into account, or proceeded without adequate information; the Council lawfully assessed the AEE, operational controls and management measures and reasonably concluded adverse effects would be no more than minor, so non-notification and the substantive consent were valid.
3 Dec 2018

JIANG v IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2018] NZHC 3152

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3152
Court

High Court

The Court held the Tribunal's adverse credibility findings were unreasonable and amounted to error of law because they were unnecessary to decide the complaints, the Tribunal failed to adequately consider the reasonable alternative that Mr Jiang had innocently forgotten his directorship, and the Tribunal's chain of reasoning was unsupported by the evidence; accordingly the Court declared the Tribunal should not have made those adverse credibility findings.
9 Feb 2018

SAMSON CORPORATION LTD & OR v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 97

Citation

[2018] NZHC 97
Court

High Court

The Panel had admissible evidence and a rational basis for concluding the Special Character Overlay and the Residential – Single House Zone should apply to the site; the Panel's general approach to overlays did not amount to a rule that overlays must be disregarded when zoning and did not preclude the Panel from applying the Single House Zone here; therefore the Panel's recommendation and the Council's acceptance were options open on the evidence and did not amount to an error of law, so the appeal is dismissed.
31 Jul 2015

Strathern v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 218
Court

District Court

ACC's decision was set aside because it proceeded on an incorrect legal premise (treating the pre-2005 three-year limit as absolute) and failed to consider or properly assess the statutory matters in s87(2B) (likelihood of achieving the individual rehabilitation plan, cost-effectiveness with regard to future entitlements, and appropriateness), rendering the decision manifestly wrong in law and requiring quashing and remittal for a fresh decision.
4 Jun 2015

O'Mara v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 136
Court

District Court

The Court found ACC and the reviewer failed to take into account relevant considerations under clause 14 Schedule 1 (notably the prolonged extraordinary caregiving by the mother and partner, the claimant's increasing size and complexity of night-time seizure and oxygen management, the presence of other dependent children and the claimant's age), such that the review decision was wrong in the administrative law sense; accordingly the appeal was allowed and retrospective additional attendant carer entitlements were awarded for specified periods.
12 Nov 2014

BURNIE & ORS v BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL & ORS [2014] NZHC 2807

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2807
Court

High Court

Interim relief was declined because the applicant failed to demonstrate a real contest and a reasonable chance of success on the central argument that the applications should have been jointly heard; s91 was not engaged once the Regional Council decided not to notify; there was no necessity to preserve the applicant's position given minimal delay, no evidence the landfill could operate before the substantive hearing, and the residual discretion did not favour granting interim orders.
7 Jun 2013

ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v BULLER DISTRICT COUNCIL AND WEST COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL & Anor [2013] NZHC 1346

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1346
Court

High Court

Offsets and other positive environmental measures proffered by applicants are relevant considerations under s104(1)(a) and s5(2) and may be weighed in the overall sustainable management judgement, but such offsets are not the same as mitigation properly understood under s5(2)(c); the Environment Court erred in treating DBEA/HBEA as 'offset mitigation' and must separately assess mitigation at the point of impact and offsets when reconsidering conditions; DPPA and other proffers are lawful considerations though weight is for the Environment Court to assess and efficacy/security of benefits is a…
8 Mar 2012

FERRYMEAD RETAIL LIMITED V CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL HC CHCH CIV-2011-409-000333

Citation

openlaw-9ccee19b_3ebb_4a73_a2a1_6975315f2294.pdf
Court

High Court

The Commissioner correctly interpreted the City Plan "trade supplier" definition as not requiring a proportional trade/retail sales analysis; the Council had adequate information (peer-reviewed traffic reports, economist advice, site inspection and legal opinion) to lawfully decide non-notification and grant consent; and the traffic and related conditions were inherent, adequate and enforceable. Therefore judicial review relief was not warranted.