New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jurisdiction to impose conditions

Legal area

Court

6 Dec 2022

GRP HOLDINGS LTD v VP NOMINEES LTD [2022] NZHC 3262

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3262
Court

High Court

The Court declined the application. Even if jurisdiction existed to add a condition requiring an undertaking after a caveat was sustained, it was not appropriate on the facts: there was no material change in circumstances justifying the order, VP Nominees proceeded with the Cabra sale having been on notice of GRP's claims and the caveat, there was insufficient evidence that VP Nominees would suffer loss that GRP should be required to underwrite, and VP Nominees retained a significant deposit and other protections; accordingly the application for an undertaking was refused.
16 Jun 2020

LUXTON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 1355

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1355
Court

High Court

The appeal was allowed and the electronic monitoring conditions were quashed because the application did not present a sufficient evidential basis for imposing electronic monitoring via s94: there was no relevant change in circumstances since sentencing and the probation officer's late affidavit did not justify increasing restrictive measures; the court declined to finally determine the precise scope of s93(3A) but proceeded on ostensible authority and found the substantive justification lacking.
24 Aug 2018

WOODS v NZ POLICE [2018] NZHC 2189

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2189
Court

High Court

The challenged conditions were lawful: the curfew and electronic monitoring did not amount to a s 33 residential restriction because the appellant was not subject to all s 33(2) requirements; all challenged conditions exhibited a rational nexus to the purposes in s 93(3), and were necessary and proportional given the appellant's high risk and rehabilitative needs; the programme condition fell within s 15(3)(b)/s16 as a permissible placement and aimed to facilitate rehabilitation and reintegration.
11 Jul 2018

NGAI TE HAPU INCORPORATED v BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 1710

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1710
Court

High Court

The appeal was dismissed because Ngāi Te Hapū Inc failed to pay ordered security for costs and the appeal had no realistic prospect of success: most substantive grounds were out of time, many alleged errors were factual evaluations outside a s299 appeal, and the Environment Court lawfully concluded it could not require full removal of the wreck as a condition of a consent to abandon; the Environment Court properly considered expert evidence, Māori and Treaty matters and imposed lawful, reasonably related conditions including monitoring and offsets.
20 Oct 2017

MITCHELL v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZCA 475

Citation

[2017] NZCA 475
Court

Court of Appeal

Section 94 is subject to the temporal limits created by s93; because Ms Mitchell's sentence expired on 2 December 2015 and the statutory six month limit for conditions under s93 had passed by July 2016, the District Court had no jurisdiction to impose special release conditions on 29 July 2016, and those conditions are invalid. Leave to appeal under s296 was properly granted where a question of law arose and the issue was not merely academic between the parties.
13 Feb 2017

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v KERR [2017] NZHC 139

Citation

[2017] NZHC 139
Court

High Court

The High Court does not have jurisdiction to impose the special intensive monitoring condition on an existing extended supervision order; only the Parole Board can impose special conditions but it cannot itself impose intensive monitoring without a High Court order and the High Court may make that order only when simultaneously imposing an extended supervision order, therefore the Court adjourned the applications and declined to impose the proposed special conditions at this stage.
8 Feb 2008

BROOKBY QUARRIES LIMITED V MANUKAU CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2007-404-6082

Citation

openlaw-c2a545c9_cffa_49c0_8f20_dea747fb07e6.pdf
Court

High Court

The strike-out application was dismissed because on a summary application the Court was not satisfied it was clear that the appellant could obtain no benefit from the appeal; the court will not exercise its sparingly‑used strike‑out jurisdiction where uncertainty exists about possible prejudice arising from a redrafted consent condition and resolution requires a full hearing.

New Zealand Case Law

GRP HOLDINGS LTD v VP NOMINEES LTD [2022] NZHC 3262

LUXTON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 1355

WOODS v NZ POLICE [2018] NZHC 2189

NGAI TE HAPU INCORPORATED v BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 1710

MITCHELL v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZCA 475

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v KERR [2017] NZHC 139

BROOKBY QUARRIES LIMITED V MANUKAU CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2007-404-6082