New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural bars

Legal area

Court

28 Oct 2021

PETROMONT HOLDINGS LIMITED v DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2021] NZCA 567

Citation

[2021] NZCA 567
Court

Court of Appeal

Section 329(4) limits the ability to challenge validated permitting decisions to the specific modes and timeframes set out in that subsection; the Director-General's 15 September 1993 decision was not the subject of court proceedings by 1 October 1996 and was not a delegated decision subject to administrative review under s 63(11), therefore it was statutorily validated and immune from the present challenge; a claimed legitimate expectation cannot operate to defeat the statutory validation.
28 May 2021

P (SC 46/2021) v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2021] NZSC 51

Citation

[2021] NZSC 51
Court

Supreme Court

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process because it constituted a third (fourth including the Court of Appeal recall) successive challenge to the same Court of Appeal judgment; the panel declined to entertain further repeated challenges and dismissed the leave application.
1 Mar 2021

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER [2021] NZSC 12

Citation

[2021] NZSC 12
Court

Supreme Court

The minute of 28 February 2020 and the earlier 25 November 2019 judgment did not determine any issue in a way adverse to the applicant; consequently there was no "judgment, decree or order" giving the Court of Appeal jurisdiction under s 56 Senior Courts Act 2016 to entertain the appeal, and therefore leave to appeal is not warranted.
26 Aug 2019

MAREE HOWARD v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2019] NZSC 92

Citation

[2019] NZSC 92
Court

Supreme Court

The application for recall failed because it did not raise any matter falling within the limited grounds for recall established in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2); accordingly the recall is dismissed and the Registrar is directed to decline further recall filings.
28 Mar 2017

GENGE v SUPERINTENDENT OF CHRISTCHURCH MENʼS PRISON [2017] NZSC 40

Citation

[2017] NZSC 40
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because no exceptional circumstances justified a direct appeal, the application raised no new issues and was barred by s 15(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 as a re-examination of matters already finally determined, and habeas corpus is not the appropriate vehicle to resolve parole issues; no retrospectivity arose because the substantive penalty (life imprisonment) was unchanged.
11 Jun 2013

JOHN COLMAN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2013] NZSC 55

Citation

[2013] NZSC 55
Court

Supreme Court

The recall applications were dismissed because the applicant's proposed challenge would engage abuse of process principles by attempting to re-litigate issues determined in earlier proceedings and did not meet the criteria for granting leave to appeal; a discharge without conviction does not nullify prior rulings such that they become open to collateral attack in this context, and the Court retains discretion to grant or refuse leave regardless of the respondent's specific grounds of opposition.
24 Nov 2010

GORDANA VUKOMANOVIC V THE RESIDENCE REVIEW BOARD AND ANOR CA CA460/2010

Citation

openlaw-a6bed3c0_7e05_4bce_8454_091e38b1bfba.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Section 115(2) mandates that appeals to the High Court be brought within 28 days or the time may only be extended if an application for extension is made within that 28-day period; absent express statutory power to extend after that period the High Court has no jurisdiction to hear an out-of-time appeal, therefore leave to appeal was declined.
28 Mar 2006

CHARLTON V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CA CA9/06

Citation

openlaw-efe202d2_c0be_4ffe_9c79_99a80956ee36.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The deputy registrar's decision was correct and is confirmed because the applicant failed to demonstrate the proceeding raised a question of law of significant interest under reg 5 and had already pursued the same arguments unsuccessfully through multiple fora, so waiver of the filing fee was not appropriate.