New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reasonableness of administrative decision

Legal area

Court

25 Aug 2023

NEW ZEALAND FOREST OWNERS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED v WAIROA DISTRICT COUNCIL [2023] NZCA 398

Citation

[2023] NZCA 398
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the appeal dismissed: there is no legal requirement that a general rate differential bear a close or direct correlation to specific service costs; the Council lawfully considered the matters in s101(3), acted within its statutory discretion after proper process, and did not act for an improper purpose or unreasonably in adopting the forestry differential.
27 Jun 2018

TALLEY’S GROUP LTD v WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND [2018] NZHC 1565

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1565
Court

High Court

The High Court held the inspector's decision was reasonably open: expert evidence for WorkSafe was more credible that the Listeria risk was manageable; alternative guarding options could reduce employee injury without materially increasing food safety risk; therefore issuing the improvement notice was not unreasonable.
26 Sept 2017

TERRY v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2017] NZHC 2352

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2352
Court

High Court

ACC's determination under s105(2) was unlawful because after granting cover ACC failed to follow the statutory rehabilitation regime (ss70,75,77,78,80,89), did not update the individual rehabilitation plan or properly integrate occupational and medical assessments before disentitling appellant; entitlement to weekly compensation and vocational rehabilitation remained live until properly determined, therefore the decision is remitted to ACC for redetermination.
29 Mar 2017

TEKANI v THE MANAGER, CHRISTCHURCH MENʼS PRISON [2017] NZHC 604

Citation

[2017] NZHC 604
Court

High Court

The transfer was a reasonable and lawful administrative decision justified by the probation officer's supervisory role under s25(1)(ab) and by s54(1)(b) as facilitating reintegration and reducing risk of immediate breach, therefore the judicial review application failed.
24 Dec 2013

HUATA v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2013] NZHC 3569

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3569
Court

High Court

Detention pursuant to an interim recall order under s 62(1) of the Parole Act 2002 was lawful; the applicant failed to demonstrate the Chairman's decision was so unreasonable as to be unlawful and habeas corpus was not the appropriate remedy because the decision is amenable to statutory review under s 67 of the Parole Act, therefore the habeas corpus application is dismissed.
8 Oct 2013

Ranson v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 324
Court

District Court

ACC acted reasonably in deeming the IRP because it followed repeated specialist recommendations and had evidence that further psychological assessment would be unproductive; adopting an FCE was a rational step even if it could not fully determine medication-related cognitive effects; the appellant's refusal to agree was not reasonable; appeal dismissed and costs at review awarded.
13 Jul 2012

Clough v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 237
Court

District Court

On the evidence the ordinary tasks of a resource recovery supervisor did not include essential heavy lifting; the appellant was capable of performing the supervisory role (which was mainly administrative and supervisory) and had worked for an extended period post-injury and post-surgery without contemporaneous complaints; ACC therefore had credible and sufficient evidence to suspend weekly compensation and the appeal is dismissed.
2 Jun 2011

King v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 166
Court

District Court

The Court held that on the available medical evidence the Corporation reasonably relied on the treating surgeon's opinion that further physiotherapy would not produce a long‑term benefit for a chronic regional pain syndrome, so the decision to decline funding was reasonable and the appeal was dismissed.
18 Dec 2009

Stephens v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 222
Court

District Court

The Court accepted Dr Turner's medical assessment as having properly considered the appellant's mobility limits and found both the occupational and medical assessments complied with statutory requirements under ss107 and 108; vocational independence focuses on capacity for other work-types and is not concerned with business losses or ability to secure employment, therefore the respondent's decision was correct and is confirmed.
26 Mar 2009

Nee v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2009] NZACC 44
Court

District Court

The District Court held that the Reviewer properly identified and reviewed the 8 February 2007 decision, that procedural irregularities did not mandate remittal, and that ACC's finalisation of the IRP on 8 February 2007 was reasonable because the appellant's proposed alteration to the IRP outcome was inconsistent with the statutory vocational rehabilitation purposes in s80 and because work-capacity determinations are medical matters; appeal dismissed.