New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Parens patriae jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

5 Dec 2017

L v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY FOR VULNERABLE CHILDREN, ORANGA TAMARIKI [2017] NZHC 3008

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3008
Court

High Court

The s78 custody order expired on determination of the s67 declaration on 30 October 2017 so the child's detention was unlawful; the Family Court could not validly use the slip rule to make a substantive continuation of s78 custody without proper process; given the paramountcy of the child's welfare and relevant authorities the High Court should transfer the habeas corpus application to the Family Court under s13(2) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 and may, in the interim, exercise its parens patriae jurisdiction to maintain existing custody arrangements pending Family Court determination.
21 Feb 2017

OLSSON v CULPAN [2017] NZHC 215

Citation

[2017] NZHC 215
Court

High Court

The applicant was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus requiring the respondent to deliver the two children to her and the Court, exercising powers under the Care of Children Act 2004 (or alternatively parens patriae), properly made consent orders implementing a detailed memorandum of arrangements for the children’s immediate welfare; costs were reserved with specified filing timelines.
30 Jun 2015

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KIM DOREEN VASEY [2015] NZHC 1491

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1491
Court

High Court

The Court granted approval under s66 (and indicated inherent parens patriae power) for the trustees to settle the minor beneficiary's potential entitlement by setting aside $75,000 on specified terms because the compromise reasonably balances the minor's likely entitlement and risks (including costs, increased debts, and competing claims) and avoids litigation disproportionate to the estate's value; provisional view was that clause 5.4 likely included both the separate $140,000 and half the remaining equity but a full hearing was unnecessary to approve the settlement.
30 Apr 2014

CARRINGTON v CARRINGTON [2014] NZHC 869

Citation

(2014) 22 PRNZ 43
Court

High Court

Where issues fall squarely within the PPPRA the Family Court has original jurisdiction and statutory remedies must be exhausted; the High Court's Declaratory Judgments Act jurisdiction and parens patriae/inherent jurisdiction are residual and complementary and cannot be used to determine the validity of a will inter vivos or to pre-empt Family Court PPPRA processes; accordingly the originating application seeking declarations/orders in respect of the respondent's 2011 will, enduring powers of attorney and capacity to commence Family Court proceedings was struck out.
27 Aug 2007

HAWTHORNE V COX AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-7390

Citation

openlaw-404989f8_740a_4fee_9757_a9df4e8ad644.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave for the lawyer to apply without notice was permissibly made given the lawyer's role and lack of prejudice, but the substantive guardianship order was set aside because the evidence did not meet the protective threshold required to place a 16 year old under court guardianship; a 16 year old is presumptively mature and court guardianship is a protective remedy to be invoked only when necessary.

New Zealand Case Law

L v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY FOR VULNERABLE CHILDREN, ORANGA TAMARIKI [2017] NZHC 3008

OLSSON v CULPAN [2017] NZHC 215

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KIM DOREEN VASEY [2015] NZHC 1491

CARRINGTON v CARRINGTON [2014] NZHC 869

HAWTHORNE V COX AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-7390