New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural appropriateness

Legal area

Court

17 May 2023

RAFIQ v SECRETARY FOR INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE FOR DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2023] NZHC 1188

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1188
Court

High Court

Costs awarded to the respondents because they conceded the decision was inadequate before the hearing and the matter could have been resolved by a joint memorandum quashing the decision; the applicant nevertheless insisted on a hearing and pursued unrealistic remedies, so he must pay the respondents' costs and disbursements of $10,192.33.
15 Jul 2022

TIPTON v BAY OF PLENTY DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2022] NZHC 1692

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1692
Court

High Court

The applicant's detention was lawful because it was effected by statutory directions under ss11 and 13 of the Mental Health Act supported by produced documents, and habeas corpus was an inappropriate procedure to challenge the correctness of medical assessments where the Mental Health Act provides the statutory remedy of review under s16; accordingly the habeas corpus application was dismissed under s14(1A) of the Habeas Corpus Act.
17 Dec 2020

TAYLOR v DIRECTOR, OTAGO CORRECTIONS FACILITY [2020] NZHC 3405

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3405
Court

High Court

The interim recall order was lawful because the second application contained materially different and additional evidence (draft police summary of facts and supporting affidavits) sufficient to satisfy the threshold in s 62 Parole Act 2002; habeas corpus was not the appropriate forum given available s 67 review and judicial review remedies, and the case did not fall into the rare Kurariki exception.
28 Sept 2020

D (CA504/2020) v JUDGE J G ADAMS [2020] NZCA 454

Citation

[2020] NZCA 454
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held there was no unlawful detention of the appellant or her children by the Family Court orders; even accepting that custody or guardianship orders can amount to detention in principle, the Family Court's well‑reasoned four‑day hearing and orders did not produce unlawful detention and habeas corpus was not the appropriate procedure to challenge those orders under s 14(1A)(b) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001; the appellant's remedy is by appeal or judicial review, accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

RAFIQ v SECRETARY FOR INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE FOR DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2023] NZHC 1188

TIPTON v BAY OF PLENTY DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2022] NZHC 1692

TAYLOR v DIRECTOR, OTAGO CORRECTIONS FACILITY [2020] NZHC 3405

D (CA504/2020) v JUDGE J G ADAMS [2020] NZCA 454