New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural review

Legal area

Court

5 Dec 2023

SIEMER v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2023] NZCA 620

Citation

[2023] NZCA 620
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for recall was declined because none of the established exceptional grounds for recall were met, the judge properly applied governing principles on security for costs as per Reekie, and the appropriate remedy for challenging the decision is by appeal; a stay was declined because extensions of time can accommodate leave to appeal and a stay was not required for justice to be achieved.
4 Oct 2022

FORREST v TE WHATU ORA (HEALTH NEW ZEALAND) [2022] NZHC 2550

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2550
Court

High Court

The transfer was authorised by the statutory transfer provisions and did not require variation of the original court order; alleged procedural defects in the statutory review, even if established, do not invalidate the continuing validity of the detention order and are matters for the Review Tribunal or judicial review rather than habeas corpus. Therefore detention was not shown to be unlawful and the habeas corpus application must be dismissed.
18 Feb 2019

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE SOCIETY INCORPORATED v OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 189

Citation

[2019] NZHC 189
Court

High Court

Although the proceeding met the reg 20 public interest criterion, the Society expressly stated it would continue the appeal if the waiver was refused; because the Society did not establish the proceeding was "unlikely to be commenced or continued unless the fee is waived" as required by reg 18(2)(b)(ii), the refund/waiver could not be granted and the Registrar's decision is upheld.
22 Dec 2017

FIPPARD v THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2017] NZHC 3295

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3295
Court

High Court

Answer to question 1: No — any expectation from the 20 October letter was at best ambiguous and was displaced by the clear 21 October letter; reliance was unreasonable. Answer to question 2: Yes — the Authority erred by upholding a sanction that the Ministry was not authorised to impose under ss116B and 117; the substantive sanction was invalid notwithstanding the form of the notice. The Ministry must remedy the invalid sanction (apology and payment of arrears).
18 Dec 2015

Graham v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2015] NZACC 396
Court

District Court

The assessor correctly limited the WPI assessment to the covered lumbar injury; effects of a head injury not covered by ACC must be excluded under Schedule 1 cl 59(3)(b)(i); the assessment complied with statutory methods and the appellant did not prove on the balance of probabilities, by credible expert evidence, that the 5% assessment was flawed, therefore the appeal fails.
22 Oct 2014

A v AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2014] NZHC 2619

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2619
Court

High Court

The applicant was lawfully detained because the statutory processes under the MHCAT were properly engaged and followed (directions under s29 and s13, final certificate and s14 application for a compulsory treatment order, and s15 authorising detention pending determination); habeas corpus was not the appropriate forum to re-litigate the clinical diagnosis, therefore the habeas corpus application was declined.
18 Jul 2013

RAFIQ v CHIEF EXECUTIVE MIN OF BUS, INNOV AND EMPLOYMENT [2013] NZSC 72

Citation

[2013] NZSC 72
Court

Supreme Court

The applicant failed to provide sufficient credible information to establish undue financial hardship under reg 5(3)(b)(iii) of the Supreme Court Fees Regulations 2003; unexplained bank deposits and expenditure patterns supported the Registrar's conclusion that the waiver should be refused, so the review is dismissed and the Registrar's decision confirmed.
10 Jun 2013

Nesbit v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 162
Court

District Court

The reviewer correctly declined jurisdiction because as at 16 November 2011 there was no active, reviewable decision by ACC; the 15 June 2010 letter was advisory and ACC lawfully ceased payments on 10 July 2010 based on the GP's certification, and any substantive decision made subsequently (8 April 2013) is subject to review.
4 May 2011

G F v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 132
Court

District Court

The omission to consider the appellant's sensitive claim did not undermine the medical assessment because there was no evidence that the sensitive claim affected the appellant's physical ability to perform the four identified work-types (including continued part-time work as a Community Support Worker); therefore the Vocational Independence determination was sustainable and the ACC decision stands.
31 Aug 2009

Collins v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 146
Court

District Court

The Court held ACC properly exercised its discretion under s107 to assess vocational independence despite the appellant's age; vocational independence assesses capacity and skills to perform identified work-types, not actual success in obtaining employment, and there is no statutory age cutoff that prevents conducting the assessment.