New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Scope of judicial review

Legal area

Court

19 Dec 2022

POUTAMA KAITIAKI CHARITABLE TRUST v HERITAGE NEW ZEALAND POUHERE TAONGA [COSTS] [2022] NZHC 3509

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3509
Court

High Court

Because the appellant pursued matters and factual issues that exceeded the permissible scope of an appeal on a question of law and the appeal lacked merit, costs are awarded to both respondents; increased costs are awarded to Heritage NZ for unreasonable conduct in pursuing non‑legal arguments; the security for costs is to be distributed equally between Heritage NZ and First Gas and deducted from their respective awards.
9 Sept 2016

MEEK v HEALTH AND DISABILITY COMMISSIONER [2016] NZCA 426

Citation

[2016] NZCA 426
Court

Court of Appeal

The extension of time was refused because, although the delay was short and caused by the appellant being self-represented, those factors were outweighed by the absence of merit in the appeal and the appellant's failure to produce evidence of impecuniosity; accordingly it was not appropriate to allow an extension to pursue a dispensation application that was doomed to fail, and security for costs of $6,600 was ordered.
7 Nov 2014

X v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2014] NZHC 2779

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2779
Court

High Court

The Court held the IPT applied the wrong legal test by focusing on the harm of having to pretend to be Muslim rather than assessing the real risk of persecution if the applicant did not pretend; the matter was remitted to the IPT to determine whether refusal to declare Islam or attend religious instruction/prayers would expose the applicant to a real risk of persecution on religious grounds, within the limited scope of review granted by Faire J.
28 Aug 2008

CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED AND ORS V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC CHCH CIV 2008-409-000722

Citation

openlaw-3a73b777_279a_420e_a321_c9e3a86f6fe7.pdf
Court

High Court

Although there was insufficient evidence of deliberate breach by Ms Sisson, compliance with undertakings was inadequate and the Court therefore retained the undertaking and imposed broad interim restraints (notification and prohibition on dealings) on the plaintiffs and Ms Sisson for three months pending the outcome of the reheard judicial review to protect the Commissioner’s interests.
26 Aug 2008

MN V REFUGEE STATUS APPEALS AUTHORITY AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-007932

Citation

openlaw-ce12b917_48b7_44da_851d_ac664950c1ac.pdf
Court

High Court

The Authority's identification of the plaintiff as SS and its rejection of his narrative were supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence (LPV application dated Feb 2006 bearing the plaintiff's photograph and a post-arrival telephone call) and the Authority independently assessed and rejected any real chance of persecution; those findings were open to the Authority and do not disclose grounds for judicial review, so the application is dismissed.
15 Dec 2005

OCEANIC PALMS LIMITED V DANFORTH NOMINEES LIMITED CA CA179/05

Citation

openlaw-38901bbf_7a9f_410c_85eb_4fcc2033f1a6.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The proposed appeals had no real prospect of success because Courtney J's costs award and the Associate Judge's security for costs order were within jurisdiction and lawful exercises of discretion with no errors of principle; lay representation does not ordinarily excuse inappropriate procedure or preclude costs; leave to appeal is therefore refused and costs awarded.

New Zealand Case Law

POUTAMA KAITIAKI CHARITABLE TRUST v HERITAGE NEW ZEALAND POUHERE TAONGA [COSTS] [2022] NZHC 3509

MEEK v HEALTH AND DISABILITY COMMISSIONER [2016] NZCA 426

X v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2014] NZHC 2779

CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED AND ORS V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC CHCH CIV 2008-409-000722

MN V REFUGEE STATUS APPEALS AUTHORITY AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-007932

OCEANIC PALMS LIMITED V DANFORTH NOMINEES LIMITED CA CA179/05