16 Aug 2023
Applicant succeeded on the substantive review and is entitled to costs on a 2B basis of $23,541.50 plus usual disbursements; the respondent did not establish grounds under r14.7(d),(e) or (g) to reduce costs; an additional $1,500 is awarded for the costs application.
2 May 2023
The Director-General's allocation and delivery of the whale jawbones to Ngāti Kuri/Ngāi Tahu was unlawful: the allocation was inconsistent with the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 (possession required a permit), was effected in breach of procedural fairness and legitimate expectation owed to Rangitāne, and breached Treaty obligations under s 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 by failing to follow tikanga-consistent iwi-to-iwi processes; the decision is set aside and the jawbones are to be held pending further orders.
26 Jan 2023
The Central Authority lawfully and reasonably declined to proceed with the Article 21 access application because it properly treated the child's welfare and expressed views as relevant and paramount in the access context, concluded the application lacked reasonable prospects of success and alternative domestic remedies were available, and any delay was justified and not prejudicial.
7 Sept 2022
Threshold preservation was established but interim relief was declined because the applicant's substantive case appeared weak: the ARPHS decision to impose a closure condition was supported by the Guidelines, site inspection and evidence of prior non-compliance, and a reasonable decision-maker could have reached the same conclusion; the public interest, operational timing and significant financial consequences of delay outweighed the applicant's private prejudice from temporary closure.
7 Jul 2022
The tyre decision was not amenable to judicial review because it was an internal management decision of a private incorporated society concerning race class parameters and did not raise sufficient public or quasi‑public concerns; alternatively, on the merits, the applicant failed to establish illegality, bias, breach of natural justice or legitimate expectation warranting relief, and relief would be inappropriate given alternative internal remedies and subsequent votes.
30 Aug 2021
The High Court held the leave order was ultra vires because the interlocutory application for leave to appeal had been filed out of time without an application to extend time; the Registry acted with procedural impropriety by rejecting the filing then referring it to the judge without advising parties, and there was a breach of natural justice in failing to give the applicant and third respondent an opportunity to be heard. The Court set aside the leave order and remitted the leave application to the Family Court for reconsideration.
18 Dec 2020
The Court held the investigator panel was validly appointed, the Chief Executive properly made the complaint in her employer role, Mr Benham was authorised to investigate, and the investigation and subsequent Council hearing complied with natural justice; any minor procedural imperfections were cured by the full investigation and the Council meeting where the applicant had ample opportunity to be heard. The judicial review application was dismissed and costs were reserved.
15 Aug 2019
The definition of "amusement device" in s21A is directed to fairground-type devices erected and operated at fixed locations; it does not properly cover Off Road's outdoor go-kart operation as an 'amusement device', so the Amusement Devices Regulations 1978 (including r5(1)(d) seatbelt mandate) do not apply to this operation; declaratory relief granted accordingly.
17 May 2019
The Court directed that the judicial review and appeal be heard together because they share common facts and parties, the issues are interrelated and could affect each other's outcomes, hearing together avoids duplication and potential inconsistent orders, preserves judicial control over which issues to decide, and is the most efficient and proportionate way to resolve both the arguable apparent bias judicial review challenge and the substantive appeal on charitable status despite the applicant having an arguable bias ground.
6 Mar 2019
Leave to proceed with judicial review was refused because the application was essentially vexatious and intended to harass, closely linked to a vexatious litigant, lacked any arguable merit on claims of bias or procedural impropriety, and was encompassed by an existing civil restraint order restricting proceedings without leave.