New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Parliamentary privilege

Legal area

Court

3 Oct 2023

TE RŪNANGA O NGĀI TAHU v TE OHU KAI MOANA TRUSTEE LTD [2023] NZHC 2763

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2763
Court

High Court

Plaintiff reasonably commenced proceedings given uncertainty as to the Minister's written position, and the subsequent introduction of the Amendment Bill maintaining population-based distribution was a supervening event that obviated the need for the proceedings; however because the plaintiff did not immediately discontinue after that event and sought a stay instead, the presumption in r 15.23 was not fully displaced and the Second Defendant is entitled to costs on a 2B basis for the period from 22 December 2022 until discontinuance on 1 March 2023; award fixed at $6,453.00.
27 Feb 2023

TE RŪNANGA O NGĀI TAHU v TE OHU KAI MOANA TRUSTEE LTD [2023] NZHC 302

Citation

[2023] NZHC 302
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its broad discretion under the High Court Rules and rescinded the January 27, 2023 stay because the prejudice to the Trustee from unresolved, extant allegations outweighed the plaintiff's disadvantages from discontinuance; the Court further signalled a preliminary view that the pleaded declarations against the Minister, insofar as they challenge proposed legislation now before Parliament, likely infringe parliamentary privilege and should be discontinued or struck out, and directed that absent discontinuance the plaintiff must seek a priority fixture.
20 Oct 2022

LEE v ROTORUA DISTRICT COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 2719

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2719
Court

High Court

The presumption under r 15.23 was not displaced: the applicant voluntarily discontinued a complex judicial review that he commenced and could reasonably have anticipated would attract intervention; the Attorney-General's intervention and case management did not amount to fatal prejudice; 2C rates were appropriate for steps 2 and 30; therefore Robert Lee was ordered to pay Rotorua District Council costs of $39,696.
26 Feb 2021

FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPLAINTS LTD v CHIEF OMBUDSMAN [2021] NZHC 307

Citation

[2021] 2 NZLR 475
Court

High Court

The Chief Ombudsman's 20 June 2019 decision was quashed because, on the evidence as a whole, he had predetermined the outcome: his contemporaneous emails to the Speaker during active reconsideration demonstrated a closed mind and intent to delay finalisation pending parliamentary action, and his failure to take steps to secure a savings provision for FSCL reinforced predetermination; accordingly the decision was unlawful and must be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh reconsideration by an Ombudsman other than the Chief Ombudsman or under appropriate delegation.
6 Jul 2020

THE KIWI PARTY INCORPORATED v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZSC 61

Citation

[2020] NZSC 61
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds lacked sufficient prospects of success: there is no recognised constitutional right to bear arms in New Zealand, challenges to Select Committee procedures are barred by parliamentary privilege, the prerogative was not engaged, and the established rule that courts may not declare Acts of Parliament invalid precluded the applicant's claims.
4 Aug 2016

TE OHU KAI MOANA TRUSTEE LTD v HER MAJESTYʼS ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2016] NZHC 1798 [4 August 2016]

Citation

[2016] NZAR 1169
Court

High Court

The Court held that continuation of the proceedings as pleaded while the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill was before the House would breach the comity principle because the declarations sought impermissibly invited the Court to comment on the substance and propriety of pending legislation; accordingly a temporary stay was necessary until the legislative process is complete.
31 Jul 2014

TAYLOR v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2014] NZHC 1795

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1795
Court

High Court

The application for a priority fixture was declined because the applicants did not demonstrate the special hardship or compelling public interest necessary to displace ordinary scheduling: the proceedings were issued long after the amendment, are at a preliminary procedural stage with incomplete pleadings and a pending strike-out/appeal window, and it was unrealistic to expect a fully reasoned judgment and legislative change before the imminent election and parliamentary dissolution.
22 Dec 2009

ATTORNEY-GENERAL V TE KENEHI MAIR AND ORS CA CA644/2009

Citation

openlaw-8b1762ef_980d_4cf5_afca_0fcd13225ceb.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, holding the High Court erred in finding Judge Milroy acted unlawfully; Judge Milroy lawfully applied the Tribunal's urgency criteria and appropriately weighed tangible and intangible prejudice and the mandate evidence; s5(2) does not impose a mandatory Treaty-principles overlay on interlocutory case management decisions; the High Court orders were quashed and the matter remitted to the Tribunal to reconsider in accordance with law.
8 Dec 2008

ERU POTAKA-DEWES AND ORS V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ORS HC AK CIV 2008-404-006327

Citation

openlaw-c1d68cb4_2398_4576_9792_a1e208f41029.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs' claims against the Crown defendants were non-justiciable because they attacked executive acts preparatory to legislation and political decisions properly within Parliament's exclusive domain; accordingly there was no reasonable cause of action and the claims were struck out.
22 Nov 2007

BOSCAWEN AND ORS V ATTORNEY-GENERAL HC WN CIV-2007-485-2418

Citation

openlaw-dc36c767_418a_43d7_9068_603f2c862a3c.pdf
Court

High Court

The applicants' urgency application is refused because there is a substantial jurisdictional question arising from parliamentary privilege and binding authority indicating the Court may be unable to adjudicate on matters affecting proceedings in the House; further, any relief potentially available could be accommodated after passage of the Bill and would not be unjustly curtailed by refusing urgency.