New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural fairness/natural justice

Legal area

Court

16 Jul 2021

ROE v THE UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO [2021] NZHC 1808

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1808
Court

High Court

The University acted lawfully and within its MPhil regulations in fixing the enrolment start date as 1 May 2018, rejecting the applicant's proposed truncated timeframe, sending the thesis to two external examiners who independently found it inadequate and recommended revision and re-enrolment under reg 22(e); the University kept accurate records and the judicial review application is dismissed.
3 May 2019

CLEARWATER MUSSELS LIMITED v THE MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 961

Citation

[2019] NZHC 961
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the Environment Court's refusal of consent because the proposals posed a real (albeit relatively small) risk of adverse effects to the endangered King Shag and would have significant adverse effects on the natural character and outstanding landscape values of Pig Bay/Te Anamāhanga contrary to the NZCPS and the Sounds Plan; economic factors and the applicant's modest investment did not outweigh the statutory and policy directives to avoid such adverse effects.
21 Jun 2018

CITY FINANCIAL INVESTMENT COMPANY (NEW ZEALAND) LTD v TRANSPOWER NEW ZEALAND LTD [2018] NZHC 1488

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1488
Court

High Court

The Court held there was no prima facie breach of the Code: Transpower's annual reports had specified minimum bipole service levels in aggregate and aggregate bipole capacity was maintained after the 2016 change (no breach of cl 12.111); the failure to publish the 2016 report was inadvertent and immaterial (cl 12.118); 'capacity/capability' in cl 13.30 is not confined to a single engineering-only meaning and Transpower provided accurate operational data; clause 7.10 is interpretive and does not impose a freestanding enforceable obligation beyond assessing conduct under the Code; the Authority…
8 Jun 2016

KI COMMERCIAL LIMITED v CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 1218

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1218
Court

High Court

The Court held the Panel committed an error of law by failing to undertake the s32AA further evaluation and by denying KIC an opportunity to comment on an amendment that materially affected its interests; the appropriate remedy was to allow the appeal and remit the relevant parts of the Panel's decision back to the Panel with a direction to allow KIC to file further submissions and evidence and for the Panel to reconsider P2,P9 and P10 of r15.7.2.1.
19 Feb 2013

JIN V NORTH SHORE DISTRICT COURT & ORS HC AK CIV 2012-404-004905

Citation

openlaw-85c250d7_7e8c_40a2_be09_89dec0462174.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for judicial review was dismissed: the District Court's procedural decisions (trial mode allocations, unless orders and timetable directions) were within its powers under the District Courts Act and the Rules including r 1.13 and implied jurisdiction, any registry error did not cause prejudice and alternative remedies (appeal, s70A, rules applications) and waiver meant judicial review relief was inappropriate; the applicant's pleadings and affidavits were deficient and the application was misconceived.

New Zealand Case Law

ROE v THE UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO [2021] NZHC 1808

CLEARWATER MUSSELS LIMITED v THE MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 961

CITY FINANCIAL INVESTMENT COMPANY (NEW ZEALAND) LTD v TRANSPOWER NEW ZEALAND LTD [2018] NZHC 1488

KI COMMERCIAL LIMITED v CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 1218

JIN V NORTH SHORE DISTRICT COURT & ORS HC AK CIV 2012-404-004905