New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Natural justice and bias

Legal area

Court

8 Feb 2013

SIEMER v OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE [2013] NZHC 112

Citation

[2013] NZHC 112
Court

High Court

Leave to cross-examine was refused because the applicant did not meet the high Geary threshold: the affidavit material together with newly disclosed documents (meeting transcript and legal advice) provided sufficient information to permit fair resolution of the judicial review issues, the allegations of bias/fraud were speculative and vague, Duffy J had already refused leave and nothing material had changed, and any factual issues that become necessary can be addressed at the substantive hearing including by later direction for evidence if required.
23 Mar 2012

Beck v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 100
Court

District Court

The District Court refused leave because the applicant failed to identify any arguable question of law; the judge found no misdirection, oversight, irrelevance or untenable factual finding by the reviewer or District Court; the Corporation properly investigated the claim and acted on an appropriate assessment, so no legal issue for High Court consideration existed.
24 Nov 2009

AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR V ATTORNEY GENERAL SUED AS DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & HOUSING (WEATHERTIGHT SERVICES) AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2009-404-1761

Citation

openlaw-5b8d7eef_6594_432f_804f_c2585126eda8.pdf
Court

High Court

The panel's reasoning contained legal errors (one member failed to form the necessary opinion and both relied on incorrect or irrelevant assumptions), but on the facts the dwelling was not completed until after 12 October 1995 so the panel's eligibility conclusion was open on the available material; notwithstanding the legal errors the Court refused relief because setting aside the eligibility decision would be manifestly unjust given the trustees would lose their only viable remedy through limitation.
19 May 2009

KNIGHT V VETERINARY COUNCIL OF NZ AND ORS HC WN CIV-2007-485-1300

Citation

openlaw-29a0b685_291d_4585_83a7_930f3990f4d2.pdf
Court

High Court

The Registrar lacked lawful authority to refer Dr Knight to the second Complaints Committee under s39 given the restriction in clause 17(2) Schedule 1; the Judicial Committee relied on the Code as amended after the events and failed to address whether the proven record-keeping breaches met the statutory test for professional misconduct, constituting errors of law that warrant quashing of the finding of professional misconduct and the consequential orders of 16 May 2007.
29 Jun 2007

MCILRAITH V CIR HC HAM CIV 2003-419-208 M136/01

Citation

openlaw-1bba4459_537c_43df_8232_23f8f9369bbc.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the Commissioner correctly assessed the specific amounts received by the plaintiff as taxable (dividends, monetary remuneration or income reconstructed under tax avoidance rules), allocated them to the year in which they were received, declined the plaintiff's double taxation and time‑bar arguments, found the later company returns irrelevant and materially incorrect, and dismissed judicial review claims as moot or unfounded because the statutory challenge process cured any procedural defects and no bias was established.

New Zealand Case Law

SIEMER v OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE [2013] NZHC 112

Beck v Accident Compensation Corporation

AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR V ATTORNEY GENERAL SUED AS DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & HOUSING (WEATHERTIGHT SERVICES) AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2009-404-1761

KNIGHT V VETERINARY COUNCIL OF NZ AND ORS HC WN CIV-2007-485-1300

MCILRAITH V CIR HC HAM CIV 2003-419-208 M136/01