New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mandatory relevant considerations

Legal area

Court

18 Aug 2023

WALLACE v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2023] NZHC 2248 [18 August 2023]

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2248
Court

High Court

The chief executive's transfer decisions were unlawful because the mandatory considerations in s 54(4) of the Corrections Act 2004 and the Prison Operations Manual requirements required individualised consideration prior to transfers even for muster-management reasons; that requirement was not met for the Arohata sentenced women; the transfers and consequential effective closure disproportionately disadvantaged women and amounted to unjustified discrimination under s 19 NZBORA; the discriminatory effects and the Women's Strategy were not considered and therefore the decisions were not demonst…
22 Oct 2020

A v MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2020] NZHC 2782

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2782
Court

High Court

The judicial review is dismissed: on the material (including classified intelligence) the Minister had reasonable grounds to form the requisite belief that the applicant intended to facilitate terrorist acts and that cancellation would prevent or impede that danger; procedural steps (including appointment of a special advocate) and reasons were adequate in context; NZBORA infringements were justified under s5; permanent name suppression ordered.
4 Jun 2019

ISLAND BAY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 1240 [4 June 2019]

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1240
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the judicial review: the Council's consultation (including 14 months of prior engagement culminating in a 14-day formal consultation) complied with s77, s78 and s82 LGA and common law duties; options reasonably reflected practicable designs and safety/regulatory constraints; technical peer review could properly occur after a preferred option was selected; Option E could be nominated by submitters; the Mayor's hybrid option was not so materially different as to require re-consultation; and the Council lawfully weighed submissions among other factors so there was no unl…
29 Mar 2019

Hugh Green Limited v Auckland Council [2019] NZHC 635

Citation

Hugh Green Limited v Auckland Council [2019] NZHC 635
Court

High Court

Recall was dismissed because the matters plaintiffs now relied on (procedural legitimate expectation and effect of s 78 LGA) were not properly pleaded or squarely before the Court at trial; the Court had addressed the pleaded substantive legitimate expectation and mandatory relevant considerations and the recall jurisdiction is narrow and inappropriate where an issue was not pleaded or where the correct remedy is appeal; the direction to reconsider was orthodox and appropriately limited to the failure to take into account pleaded mandatory relevant considerations.
29 Mar 2019

Hugh Green Limited v Auckland Council [2019] NZHC 635

Citation

[2019] NZHC 635
Court

High Court

Although HGL was the overall successful party by obtaining quashing of the Council's decision and a direction to reconsider, a significant proportion of the Council's costs were driven by HGL's unsuccessful substantive legitimate expectation and other claims; accordingly costs were awarded to HGL but reduced by 60% to reflect the additional and unnecessary costs incurred by the Council, disbursements were generally awarded in full except that Mr Baikie's fees were reduced by 60%, and second counsel was certified.
4 Sept 2018

PAUAMAC5 INCORPORATED v DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CONSERVATION [2018] NZCA 348 [4 September 2018]

Citation

[2018] NZCA 348
Court

Court of Appeal

Shark cage diving, when berley and bait are used to draw great white sharks to submerged cages, constitutes 'pursuing' or 'disturbing' and therefore falls within the extended statutory definition of 'hunt or kill' under s 63A; however s 53(1) authorisation is limited to activities described as 'catch alive or kill', a narrower, purpose‑oriented concept consistent with the Act's protective purpose, and does not extend to authorising shark cage diving, so the Director‑General had no power under s 53(1) to authorise that activity; public safety is not a mandatory consideration in every s 53(1) a…
1 Aug 2018

GWYNN v NAPIER CITY COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 1943

Citation

[2018] NZAR 1410
Court

High Court

The special consultative procedure does not exclude the consultation principles in s 82 of the LGA; the Council breached its statutory consultation obligations by failing to identify, notify and sufficiently encourage participation from the Napier Christian community and employee representatives (First Union), rendering the decision unlawful and invalid and requiring it to be set aside and reconsidered under a proper SCP.
20 Apr 2018

HOJSGAARD v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF LAND INFORMATION NEW ZEALAND [2018] NZHC 750

Citation

[2018] 3NZLR 99
Court

High Court

The Chief Executive, in approving the Brill survey for integration, failed to have regard to a mandatory relevant consideration—namely whether the western boundary of the Wright survey is depicted as a right-lined former water boundary—and therefore the decision-making process was deficient; the Court will not substitute its own factual determination on the competing surveys but will remit the matter for limited reconsideration by the Chief Executive to determine compliance with the Rules by reference to that consideration.
20 Jun 2017

HOSPITALITY NEW ZEALAND, CANTERBURY BRANCH v CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 1360

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1360
Court

High Court

The Council was required to have regard to the objectives and policies of the district plan when reconsidering the PLAP on ARLA direction and the term "district plan" in the SSAA includes a proposed plan/decision where that proposed plan/decision (here Decision 43 of the CRDP) is sufficiently developed, reasoned and directly relevant; Decision 43 should have been brought to account, the Council did not have regard to it in the Reconsideration Decision of 29 September 2016, and those parts of that decision are set aside with a direction to reconsider having regard to the CRDP and Decision 43;…
28 Apr 2015

BANKS v PORTS OF AUCKLAND LIMITED [2015] NZHC 845

Citation

[2015] NZHC 845
Court

High Court

Interim relief was declined because the material before the Court was insufficient to decide contested evidentiary issues fairly; Ports of Auckland and, if joined, Auckland Council were entitled to an opportunity to respond and provide evidence; instead the Court imposed a timetable to ready the judicial review for substantive hearing to be heard with or immediately after the related Urban Auckland proceedings and ordered the Council to release the evidence it had prepared for Urban Auckland.