New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural time limits

Legal area

Court

6 Mar 2019

Lowry v Television New Zealand Limited [2019] NZHC 351

Citation

[2019] NZHC 351
Court

High Court

Refusal of the extension: although delay was not substantial and some leniency is due to a self‑represented litigant, the proposed appeal raised no matter of public importance and had little or no prospect of success because the BSA's contextual assessment of taste and decency was not 'plainly wrong' and fell within the BSA's expertise; interests of justice therefore did not require granting an extension.
16 Jan 2018

RANSFIELD v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2018] NZHC 4

Citation

[2018] NZHC 4
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal out of time was declined because, although there was an arguable jurisdictional point that the Authority might have modified the original decision, the claimed consequential losses were not reasonably consequential on the Ministry's decision and the appeal lacked sufficient merit or an arguable question of law to justify extending time; the substantive relief is more appropriately pursued in general proceedings.
1 Dec 2017

LI v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2017] NZHC 2977

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2977
Court

High Court

The Tribunal, on a humanitarian appeal under s207, does not have jurisdiction to determine the legal validity of underlying deportation liability or DLNs; where no appeal to the Tribunal exists on liability, s249 does not bar judicial review of INZ decisions and applicants are entitled to bring judicial review proceedings without first pursuing a futile humanitarian appeal, so leave to apply for judicial review with an extension of time is granted.
5 Oct 2007

JOHN LESLIE SPENCER V THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2006-485-1601

Citation

openlaw-28478108_bc26_4598_adf6_0cc917f43664.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 133(5) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 barred the judicial review because the plaintiff's challenges (misuse or non‑use of evidence, error in legal test, unreasonableness) were matters that could have been determined under the statutory appeal process; Ramsay is binding and the review is therefore declined.
21 Dec 2006

ALAN IVO GREER V THE PAROLE BOARD AT AUCKLAND PRISON AND ORS CA CA271/06

Citation

openlaw-027f0e8c_49a9_4035_9649_31c72f5cf408.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The detention was lawful because it was pursuant to valid warrants of commitment; therefore habeas corpus could not succeed. Leave to appeal was granted due to appellants' demonstrated delay in receipt of the High Court judgment, but the appeal was dismissed on the merits; furthermore, treating a habeas corpus application as judicial review requires a positive, case‑specific determination of the interests of justice to prevent abuse of process.
18 Aug 2005

ASTRAZENECA LIMITED V PHARMACEUTICAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY CA CA140/05

Citation

openlaw-4e7c6592_5dd3_4219_b934_ba7018e04687.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Special leave to file an out-of-time cross-appeal was granted because the respondent promptly applied once the solicitors' mistake (reliance on revoked rules) was discovered, there was no prejudice to the appellant and the appellant did not oppose the application.

New Zealand Case Law

Lowry v Television New Zealand Limited [2019] NZHC 351

RANSFIELD v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2018] NZHC 4

LI v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2017] NZHC 2977

JOHN LESLIE SPENCER V THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2006-485-1601

ALAN IVO GREER V THE PAROLE BOARD AT AUCKLAND PRISON AND ORS CA CA271/06

ASTRAZENECA LIMITED V PHARMACEUTICAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY CA CA140/05