New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Standing/locus standi

Legal area

Court

4 Mar 2021

SMITH v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 380

Citation

[2021] NZHC 380
Court

High Court

The Registrar's decision to refuse to accept the originating application was correct because the applicant was not a party to the dispute, did not disclose any sufficient interest in the matter, and was effectively seeking legal advice; a company involved in the Taxation Review Authority proceedings could seek declaratory relief but the present applicant could not, so the review application is dismissed.
20 Oct 2016

CROSS & ORS v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 2503

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2503
Court

High Court

On the pleadings and the affidavit evidence there was a bona fide and non‑speculative basis for the plaintiffs' assertion they owned the property as trustees; disputed factual issues on ownership could not be resolved on strike‑out; pre‑issue delay alone did not justify striking out, the Council did not establish inordinate post‑issue delay or serious prejudice, and potential inability to join third parties did not constitute a misuse of process warranting strike‑out. Therefore the strike‑out application was dismissed.
20 May 2008

JEFFRIES V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL HC WN CIV 2006-485-2161

Citation

openlaw-a44e68e0_9d4d_4018_949f_59dee8b1a368.pdf
Court

High Court

The consent conditions did not require development of the high-end brand; the OIC/OIO reasonably and continuously monitored the Powells' compliance under s9(1)(f) and did not unlawfully suspend monitoring; the Minister made no decision varying obligations; the OIO lawfully assessed release under the Official Information Act; and the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the first part of the proceedings, so all claims fail.

New Zealand Case Law

SMITH v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 380

CROSS & ORS v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 2503

JEFFRIES V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL HC WN CIV 2006-485-2161