New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jurisdiction of tribunal

Legal area

Court

14 Feb 2018

CLEMENTS v PARKTRUST LIMITED [2018] NZHC 133

Citation

[2018] NZHC 133
Court

High Court

The Court enforced statutory procedural limits and civil‑procedure principles: the application for stay pending appeal was an abuse of process and refused; the late appeal against the Tribunal's 5 July 2017 decision was struck out as time‑barred under s117(6) RTA; and the remaining timely appeal could not proceed until the applicant's bankruptcy status is addressed because an undischarged bankrupt cannot pursue the appeal in their own right without involvement of the Official Assignee, hence adjournment to permit that to be resolved.
25 Oct 2016

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT v MARTINE GENET [2016] NZHC 2541

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2541
Court

High Court

The Authority may order payment directly to a lay advocate as covering the appellant's costs, but the quantum should be an identifiable figure capable of orthodox calculation and provided by the appellant or advocate (invoice, time record or claim); estimating and directing payment without such information was an error requiring remittal for reconsideration with appropriate information.
16 Apr 2014

AHMED v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2014] NZHC 809

Citation

[2014] NZHC 809
Court

High Court

Section 432 of the Immigration Act 2009 preserved the applicability of the 1987 Act to persons subject to deportation orders made under the 1987 Act; therefore the applicant remained governed by the 1987 Act and could not bring a refugee or protected person claim under the 2009 Act, rendering the RSB decision void and the IPT without jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
17 Sept 2013

ANDERSON v FM CUSTODIANS LTD and ANOR [2013] NZHC 2423

Citation

(2013) 15 NZCPR 123
Court

High Court

The Tribunal and District Court erred in law by treating Unit Q as "residential premises" for the purposes of s65 RT Act where the resource consent imposes an age restriction that makes residential use otherwise unlawful; accordingly the RT Act does not furnish a s65 remedy in these circumstances and competing claims arising from the mortgagee sale must be assessed under the Land Transfer Act regime (s105) and related property law principles; the Tribunal does have jurisdiction to determine whether an asserted life interest amounts to a tenancy, but here the deed did not create a fixed term t…
30 Oct 2012

KOYAMA v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY HC WN CIV 2010-485-1493

Citation

openlaw-8c5cbce8_29fc_413d_bd80_18b799400976.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal denied because the only potentially appealable issue was jurisdiction under s 378(1)(c) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, and that issue lacked any bona fide arguable merit: the transitional provisions plainly allow continuation only of proceedings pending at the end of the statutory six month period and the appellant had no such pending proceeding; the appeal also lacked sufficient public or private importance.
28 Mar 2012

DANIEL THOMAS SPENCER RIDDIFORD V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL COA CA632/2008

Citation

COA CA632/2008
Court

Court of Appeal

Both applications were struck out: CA632/2008 was duplicative because leave to appeal on the same issue had already been granted; CA666/2011 was moot following this Court's decision quashing the Tribunal's costs order and the related High Court costs award. Applicants ordered to pay Crown costs for a standard application on band A plus usual disbursements.
21 Oct 2009

MAIR AND ANOR V THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2009-485-1499

Citation

openlaw-19656619_ef88_4fce_8670_8975dd951c63.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for a stay was refused because the Court concluded the Crown's appeal would not be rendered nugatory if no stay were granted and, by contrast, granting a stay would injuriously affect the plaintiffs given the urgent nature of their applications; potential third‑party effects were minor and speculative.
24 Sept 2008

JD AND CE HENSON PARTNERSHIP AND ORS V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC HAM CIV-2007-419-001181

Citation

openlaw-7abfdfd5_939a_426a_a4cb_51406c560cd5.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court held the TRA had jurisdiction because statutory provisions protect assessments from invalidation by procedural irregularity and the settlement deed brought the disputed assessments (even if irregularly notified) before the TRA; on the merits the taxpayers failed to discharge the burden of proof on the three contested adjustments, so the TRA's determinations were confirmed and the appeal was dismissed.
15 Apr 2008

DENIS JOHN FETHERSTON V DORCHESTER FINANCE LTD CA CA182/2008

Citation

openlaw-e66bf6d7_ff55_4f43_8c31_6656c346a53d.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The interim stay was refused because the respondent's undertaking not to pass title until the Court determined the application for special leave sufficiently protected the appellant from prejudice, making a stay unnecessary.
7 Mar 2005

TELECOM NZ LTD V CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL CA CA25/04

Citation

openlaw-61d9ea1a_f095_4182_bae1_aca7a7878988.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Land Valuation Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in declaring the 1998 valuation a nullity; validity challenges of the kind raised are for the High Court by judicial review, and the tribunal's proper remit is to value the assets de novo; accordingly the tribunal's invalidity finding was set aside and the objection was remitted to the tribunal to determine the correct valuation as at 1 September 1998.