New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Special circumstances

Legal area

Court

1 Apr 2022

TAYLOR v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2022] NZHC 657

Citation

[2022] NZHC 657
Court

High Court

Although the applicant established cumulative circumstances sufficient to meet the 'special circumstances' threshold under s247(1) by a narrow margin, the substantive judicial review of a s61 absolute discretion is limited to Wednesbury unreasonableness; the proposed review lacked legal merit on the material before the Associate Minister and consequently leave to file out of time was refused; s6 does not govern calculation of the substantive judicial review time limit under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016.
8 May 2020

CLASSIC DEVELOPMENTS NZ LTD v TAURANGA CITY COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 945

Citation

[2020] NZHC 945
Court

High Court

The council lawfully exercised its discretion: it had adequate information, properly applied the notification tests under ss 95A/95B (finding no special circumstances and no affected persons), permissibly treated the unimplemented healthcare consent as part of the existing environment on a realistic factual basis, had regard to relevant plan objectives and policies and Part 2 where appropriate, and the substantive grant of the non‑complying consent under ss 104/104D was within the range of reasonable outcomes; judicial review does not permit re‑weighing competing planner opinions.
19 Mar 2020

ZHANG v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2020] NZHC 568

Citation

[2020] NZHC 568
Court

High Court

The Associate Minister's Decision was set aside because he failed to give adequate regard to mandatory considerations, notably New Zealand's international obligations as they related to the best interests of the children, and because the Decision was unreasonable on the evidence such that the only reasonable outcome required reconsideration; the matter is referred back to the Minister for reconsideration taking account of the Court's conclusions of law.
14 Dec 2018

KAWAU ISLAND ACTION INC SOCIETY v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 3306

Citation

(2018) 20 ELRNZ 848
Court

High Court

The Council's notification decision was quashed because it proceeded on inadequate and insufficiently tested information and failed to take into account directly relevant considerations: it did not properly assess potential amenity and safety effects of helicopter operations on members of the public using the beach, its noise assessment disregarded important aspects (temporary intense Lmax impacts and effects on public beach users) and relied impermissibly on mitigation conditions that did not demonstrably exclude adverse effects, and it wrongly concluded there were no special circumstances;…
14 Feb 2018

KAUR v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2018] NZHC 138

Citation

[2018] NZHC 138
Court

High Court

An extension under s247(1)(a) is justified where, applying Rajan, the delay was not substantial and the reason (an honest procedural error by counsel which was promptly corrected by agreement and left the respondent fully apprised within time) constitutes an out‑of‑the‑ordinary explanation; accordingly further time is granted.
7 Jul 2017

KAWE-SMALL v CHING & OR [2017] NZHC 1563

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1563
Court

High Court

s 19(1) applied because the named executor neglected to prove the will; the applicant had priority under r 655 and complied with r 656, but given entrenched family conflict, risk of deadlock and likely prejudice to effective and expeditious administration, special circumstances under s 6 justified refusing the applicant's sole appointment and directing appointment of an independent solicitor/administrator.
5 May 2017

KUMANDAN v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION & EMPLOYMENT [2017] NZHC 890

Citation

[2017] NZHC 890
Court

High Court

The application for leave to appeal was filed approximately 14 months after notification of the IPT decision, well outside the mandatory 28-day limit in s245(2); because s245 does not permit extension after the 28-day period the Court had no jurisdiction to grant leave out of time and the inherent jurisdiction could not be invoked to bypass the statutory limitation, therefore the application is dismissed.
20 Dec 2016

ADVANCE APIARIES LIMITED v WAIPUNGA STATION LIMITED [2016] NZHC 3175

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3175
Court

High Court

The interim mandatory injunction was declined because damages are an adequate remedy, the sites are now occupied by a third party who would suffer prejudice and has not been heard, the applicant delayed in bringing the application during a time‑sensitive season, and no special circumstances were shown to justify the high threshold required for such relief.
31 Oct 2016

E v MBIE [2016] NZHC 2599

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2599
Court

High Court

The Court granted an extension of time under s247(1) because the delay was relatively short (11–15 days), there was an explanation in counsel error compounded by incorrect RPO advice, and the preliminary merits were strong: the combined independent medical report constituted new, material evidence which the RPO erred in dismissing without proper consideration under s140(3), such that special circumstances existed to allow the late filing.
8 Jun 2016

DAHIYA v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2016] NZHC 1217

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1217
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants failed to identify a question of law of general or public importance or an exceptional injustice; the Tribunal applied the correct special circumstances test (Rajan), there is no statutory duty to separately notify visa holders of visa type, and the applicants did not demonstrate how they would have acted differently if notified, so the criteria for s 245 leave are not met.