New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Recusal/apparent bias

Legal area

Court

7 Nov 2019

GREER v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 2911 [7 November 2019]

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2911
Court

High Court

The decision was dismissed because the accepted evidence established the applicant had only one PRN, there was no factual basis that the charge had been part‑heard or that relevant evidence was unavailable, Visiting Justice Humphrey had jurisdiction and adequate evidence to decide the matter, and there was no appearance of bias or denial of natural justice.
31 Oct 2017

BROWN v NEW ZEALAND POST LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2670

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2670
Court

High Court

The appealed decisions were interlocutory preliminary rulings (non-recusal and timetabling/directions) and not final determinations of the Tribunal within the meaning of s123(2) Human Rights Act 1993; therefore the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeals and, in any event, the appeals disclosed no reasonably arguable grounds and were struck out under r15.1 High Court Rules.
30 Oct 2017

STOCKMAN v NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION OF COUNSELLORS INC [2017] NZHC 2223

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2223
Court

High Court

The judge declined recusal because a fully informed fair-minded observer would not reasonably apprehend bias: the matter before the judge was interlocutory and procedural with no final determination; no legal reasons were required for the adjournment; suggestions to seek legal advice were legitimate assistance to a self-represented litigant and not exclusionary; and any prior involvement with the Law Commission was remote and bore no logical connection to a fear of prejudgment.
20 Jul 2017

THE COMMISSIONER, POLICE v SKIFFINGTON [2017] NZHC 1687

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1687
Court

High Court

The Court held the application for a sale order must be granted because the restrained property at 12 Moana Road was subject to mounting mortgage arrears (about $96,532.83 and increasing), the restraining order did not protect the equity or prevent erosion of value, and a sale by the Official Assignee under s35(e)(v) was necessary to preserve the property's value; accordingly the Official Assignee was directed to sell and apply proceeds to sale costs, mortgage settlement and to hold net proceeds in an interest bearing account under the restraining order.

New Zealand Case Law

GREER v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 2911 [7 November 2019]

BROWN v NEW ZEALAND POST LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2670

STOCKMAN v NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION OF COUNSELLORS INC [2017] NZHC 2223

THE COMMISSIONER, POLICE v SKIFFINGTON [2017] NZHC 1687