22 Jun 2022
INZ lawfully conducted a fresh reconsideration of the accreditation application against all WR1.25 criteria; AMS warnings were not material to the operative decision, non‑disclosure did not breach natural justice, there was no apparent bias, no material error of fact or law, and the reconsideration decline was reasonable — judicial review application dismissed.
23 Dec 2021
Instruction A5.30 must be interpreted to require a rational connection between an applicant's association with an organisation and the applicant's character; decision-makers must consider the nature, duration, extent and the applicant's knowledge of or involvement in the impugned activities and the extent of free choice; interpreted thus A5.30 is not unreasonable, unfair or ultra vires and remains valid.
30 Mar 2021
On the interim application the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo: the plaintiff had a protectable position (loss of funding, reputational damage, disruption to 53 children and their parents), the claim was seriously arguable, and the immediate and significant disruption to children and parents of summary closure outweighed the Secretary's asserted but presently unproven risk to child safety; accordingly an interim order preventing suspension until the substantive proceeding or an earlier order was necessary and proportionate.
23 Nov 2020
TVNZ was awarded 2B scale costs limited to items properly applicable to an interlocutory application (items 23, 24, 26 and certified second counsel item 27) and reasonable disbursements limited to the court filing fee; Schedule 3 items 30 and 32 were disallowed as duplicative for an interlocutory application and travel/flight costs for counsel to attend in-person were not reasonably necessary because leave to attend remotely was available.
13 May 2020
ARLA erred in law by applying an evidential/legal burden of proof and the civil standard to appellants (including Redwood) on s 83 appeals; ARLA also failed to properly evaluate (and give reasons for) whether the City Centre definition and the 3am closing‑hour restriction for on‑licences outside the City Centre were unreasonable in light of the object of the SSA. The ARLA decision as to Redwood is set aside and remitted for rehearing by ARLA without imposing a burden of proof on the appellant and with reasons addressing the specified issues.
30 Apr 2020
The Court held the Council acted within the statutory framework and its discretion under the LGA: material new information (TBIG cost/risk estimates, contamination uncertainties and an alternative 50m pool proposal in Hastings) made the 50m Onekawa option no longer reasonably practicable; the consultation document fairly presented the options and rates and was supported by Audit New Zealand; councillors received adequate information and opportunity to deliberate; the SEP amendment did not unlawfully require consultation in the circumstances; and the tender scope approval by casting vote was l…
19 Dec 2019
The Court held the Collective Redress Act s 120 is a statutory notice mechanism that removes identified land from the RFR regime by operation of the statute and does not require implying a separate disposal power; the Minister's decision to give s 120 notice was justiciable and was not unreasonable in the circumstances; the broader contention that the Crown cannot lawfully determine competing mana whenua claims is an extensive, evidence-dependent issue not properly raised or decided on this appeal.
29 Nov 2019
The Court held that Corrections' decision to disapprove the Sawyers Arms address and require immediate relocation was lawful and not unreasonable because it implemented a clear Parole Board direction, relied permissibly on concerns from a trusted service provider (CRC), and was justified by urgency and the public protection purpose of the ESO regime; any failure to disclose every concern did not render the decision unlawful or materially unfair and consideration of potential Tenancy Tribunal claims was not outcome-determinative.
16 Oct 2017
The application for judicial review is dismissed because the challenged security classification and its reconsideration were supported by evidence and lawful exercise of the Chief Executive's statutory discretion; there was no identifiable legal error, improper purpose or breach of natural justice in the scoring of internal risk factors, the NZBORA arbitrary detention claim was unsupported, and relief would be discretionary and of no utility given the applicant's subsequent engagement in rehabilitative programmes; courts will not substitute their own merits judgment for the Chief Executive's…
1 Aug 2017
The Court allowed the appeal and declared unlawful the Minister's approval of the Recovery Plan insofar as it offered nothing for uninsured improvements because that decision was unreasonable: after the Supreme Court's guidance the Minister could not lawfully adopt an area-wide denial of payment for improvements without considering individual circumstances, without over-relying on moral hazard and without a demonstrated clear connection to the marginal cost to the Crown; accordingly the High Court decision was set aside and remedy was reserved for further submissions.