New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Supervisory jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

14 Jun 2022

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v CREELMAN [2022] NZHC 1393

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1393
Court

High Court

The Court approved the proposed settlement because it was consistent with the purposes of the Act and the overall interests of justice: it avoided significant cost and delay, provided certainty, reflected that the Commissioner had a strong but not risk‑free case that the cash was tainted, and the third respondent disclaimed any interest and consented to forfeiture with no residual debt obligation.
22 Mar 2018

WALKER AND SCUTTER v PROPERTY VENTURE LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2018] NZHC 500 [22 March 2018]

Citation

[2018] NZHC 500
Court

High Court

The Court will approve a joint liquidator's resignation under its supervisory jurisdiction and s 284(1)(a) where the purpose for the joint appointment has ceased, no successor is required, there is no shown prejudice to creditors or shareholders, and the procedure by originating application is proper; accordingly Mr Scutter's resignation was authorised and Mr Walker remains sole liquidator.
28 Mar 2014

TEINA PORA v R [2014] NZHC 598

Citation

[2014] NZHC 598
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the bail application because prior common law did not recognize an inherent jurisdiction to grant bail to a sentenced prisoner serving a sentence 'in execution' pending a Privy Council appeal; Zaoui was not intended to alter that rule in this context and Parliament's legislative framework and deliberate omissions demonstrate no jurisdiction to grant bail in these circumstances.
6 Mar 2012

LAUREN V ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY HC TIM CIV 2011-476-000507

Citation

openlaw-f62d5a92_4b45_4ca5_bb4a_da396b3dea72.pdf
Court

High Court

The appointment of Kevin Byrnes was substantively invalid because the delegation condition of direct accountability was breached; acts he purportedly carried out under s127 are therefore invalid and declarations to that effect should be made, but the invalidity alone did not establish unlawful entry or abuse of process warranting prohibition, stay or exclusion of prosecution—the District Court must assess admissibility, reasonableness and any consequential unfairness at trial; limited relief (declarations) is appropriate while prosecution may continue.
6 Apr 2009

CORBITT V ROWLEY & ORS HC NWP CIV 2007-443-000688

Citation

openlaw-63b2f369_bd08_4e8b_9753_3ab6c0c72a6d.pdf
Court

High Court

There is a direct conflict between s 43(6) of the District Courts Act and s 22 of the Property (Relationships) Act; the amendments to s 22 demonstrate clear legislative intent to give exclusive originating jurisdiction and primacy to the Family Court over relationship property matters and to restrict transfer to the High Court to cases involving complexity. Accordingly s 22 overrides s 43(6) in this context and the High Court has no jurisdiction under s 43(6) to order transfer of the Family Court proceeding; the transfer application is declined for lack of jurisdiction.
17 Nov 2004

MARINE MOORING CONSULTANTS LTD V S C MUNRO And Anor CA CA4/04

Citation

openlaw-ab258f0a_bd82_4ffd_b3ff_faea71b7638a.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed because the applicant failed to prove breach of the solicitors' undertakings by clear and convincing evidence; conflicts in affidavits could not be resolved in summary proceedings without cross‑examination and there was no evidential basis to find Ms Beck liable.

New Zealand Case Law

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v CREELMAN [2022] NZHC 1393

WALKER AND SCUTTER v PROPERTY VENTURE LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2018] NZHC 500 [22 March 2018]

TEINA PORA v R [2014] NZHC 598

LAUREN V ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY HC TIM CIV 2011-476-000507

CORBITT V ROWLEY & ORS HC NWP CIV 2007-443-000688

MARINE MOORING CONSULTANTS LTD V S C MUNRO And Anor CA CA4/04