New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Quota allocation

Legal area

Court

6 Dec 2023

PETROMONT HOLDINGS LTD v THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2023] NZHC 3535

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3535
Court

High Court

The proceeding is struck out because the pleaded causes of action fundamentally seek to challenge and unravel Parliament's statutory allocations in Schedule 14 of the Fisheries Amendment Act 2004 and therefore are both legally untenable and an abuse of process; a legitimate expectation cannot be used to compel actions contrary to statute and the relief sought is not available by judicial review.
29 Jan 2020

NGĀTI MUTUNGA O WHAREKAURI ASSET HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZCA 2

Citation

[2020]3 NZLR 1
Court

Court of Appeal

Section 11 of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 bars courts from receiving evidence or submissions that question, infer from, or seek relief concerning proceedings in Parliament; the appellants' claim, as framed to challenge the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill and governmental announcements that amounted to a proposal to legislate, impermissibly sought determinations about a bill before the House and therefore must be struck out; courts remain able to declare existing rights unrelated to proposed legislation but not to adjudicate rights-consistency of draft legislation before Parliament.
1 Sept 2008

BASILE V BASILE AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2006-485-425

Citation

openlaw-f152b838_9c05_4267_ba33_71c077e90e29.pdf
Court

High Court

Plaintiff failed to prove the necessary contribution and reasonable expectation required to impose either an institutional or remedial constructive trust over 25% of the partnership quota; the increases in quota were allocated to the partnership under the statutory scheme and not as a personal beneficial entitlement to the plaintiff; consequently plaintiff's constructive trust claim dismissed and related claims to rock lobster quota fail; John's claims for exemplary and general damages against Vince also fail; the consensual caveat to be discharged.
13 May 2008

CRUSADER MEATS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V NEW ZEALAND MEAT BOARD HC WN CIV 2004-485-2147

Citation

openlaw-734110b1_c20b_4c9a_b5cf_71dd56bf11ad.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the defendant's application largely unsuccessful: the plaintiff's interrogatory answers were in substance sufficient where source documents did not exist or had been properly identified by reference to indexed discovered files; many requested particulars (including extensive records for 1997–1999 and non-EU market material) were irrelevant or oppressive or sought evidence rather than primary facts and therefore need not be ordered; however the plaintiff was ordered to provide full and verified answers to parts of interrogatories 3.1(f), 3.2(f) and 3.5(f) (2005 sales values and…

New Zealand Case Law

PETROMONT HOLDINGS LTD v THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2023] NZHC 3535

NGĀTI MUTUNGA O WHAREKAURI ASSET HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZCA 2

BASILE V BASILE AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2006-485-425

CRUSADER MEATS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V NEW ZEALAND MEAT BOARD HC WN CIV 2004-485-2147