New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tribunal procedure

Legal area

Court

26 Sept 2019

NOBLE v SIMONS [2019] NZHC 2438

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2438
Court

High Court

Appeal dismissed: the District Court validly upheld the Tribunal's factual findings of harassment and lawfully apportioned the excessive combined award to comply with statutory limits under s38 and s48 via s118; s51(7) did not apply to validate the second notice, but the Tribunal correctly resolved the termination-date dispute under s85 by treating the first notice as an obvious error and holding the second notice was valid and effective.
20 Sept 2019

AJ (Ghana) v Refugee Protection Officer [2019] NZHC 2387

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2387
Court

High Court

Leave to bring judicial review was declined because the refusal to permit a private audio-visual recording did not cause procedural unfairness or a material prejudice to the applicant; the IPT acted within its procedural discretion and its audio recording was an adequate record against which any interpretation issues could be checked; no arguable error of sufficient public importance under s 249 was demonstrated.
12 Mar 2019

W v HEALTH PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2019] NZHC 420

Citation

[2019] 3 NZLR 779
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Tribunal breached the practitioner's right to natural justice by failing to properly assess whether the complainant was truly unavailable and by adopting an incorrect approach to admissibility under Schedule 1 cl 6 and the Evidence Act; the Tribunal must reassess S's availability and the hearsay reliability and exclude or stay the charge if there are no compelling reasons to proceed without live evidence, therefore the HPDT decision is quashed and the matter remitted for reconsideration in accordance with this legal framework.
3 Aug 2018

AX (AFGHANISTAN) v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL & ANOR [2018] NZCA 290 [3 August 2018]

Citation

[2018] NZCA 290
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the Tribunal's factual finding that the applicant was a Russian national was supported by the evidence and not insupportable; therefore no arguable question of law was established to justify leave to appeal under s245, the additional material was either not fresh or not cogent except for the S affidavit which was admitted, and leave to commence judicial review was not warranted where issues could be dealt with on appeal and did not raise matters of general or public importance.
8 Mar 2017

SPARKS v IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2017] NZHC 376

Citation

[2017] NZHC 376
Court

High Court

The Tribunal correctly interpreted the Code and the statutory licensing regime to require personal discharge by a licensed immigration adviser of key client-facing obligations; its substantive findings of breaches and dishonest or misleading conduct were upheld on the evidence except that the Tribunal erred in attributing responsibility to the adviser for pre-contract specification and reasonableness of fees charged by an independent Philippines recruiter (SHI) without adequate notice or contractual basis for an agency relationship.
6 Sept 2016

COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE 403 v BROWN [2016] NZHC 2101

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2101
Court

High Court

Although the Tribunal's comparative rationale distinguishing disciplinary hearings from criminal trials contained errors, the ultimate decision to refuse alternative mode was not wrong on the facts: given the nature and context of the alleged conduct, the respondent's admissions, the confidential settlements, lack of ongoing relationship or authority, absence of evidence the witness would be disbelieved, and the need to balance fairness to both parties, the witness should give evidence in the ordinary way.
21 Aug 2014

ORLOV v THE NZ LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2014] NZHC 1987

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1987
Court

High Court

The High Court held the late amendments to reframe the charges as allegations that statements were false or made without sufficient foundation were legally appropriate and, despite procedural defects, caused no substantial prejudice; the Disciplinary Tribunal properly admitted and weighed documentary and witness material under s239; absolute privilege for defamation did not immunise the applicant from professional discipline; freedom of expression is a relevant mitigating factor but does not protect unfounded, extreme allegations by a lawyer about a judge; the convictions on the amended s7(1)…
29 May 2014

BAKER v THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL [2014] NZHC 1177

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1177
Court

High Court

Judge Reeves lacked jurisdiction to make the challenged urgency and joinder determinations because a Māori Land Court Judge is only a Tribunal member when acting as presiding officer of a properly constituted Tribunal panel under cl 5(1); consequently the delegations to her under cl 8(2) were invalid, the de facto officer doctrine did not validate her acts, and the impugned decisions are unlawful; however, only a declaration and costs were ordered given the legislative progress of the Bill.
11 Apr 2013

AUCKLAND COUNCIL V GORMLY & ORS HC AK CIV 2012-404-006768

Citation

openlaw-94ad16a3_f952_4395_86e2_730bbb977567.pdf
Court

High Court

The Tribunal applied an unduly strict requirement for joinder by demanding 'sufficiently compelling evidence' that a claim against a proposed party was capable of succeeding. On the available affidavit evidence and correspondence there was cogent evidence of Mr Doidge's personal involvement and Chenery had undertaken work that may have contributed to damage; at this early stage proportionality concerns do not justify exclusion. The High Court therefore ordered joinder under s111(1).
28 Feb 2013

M V HAWKE'S BAY STANDARDS COMMITTEE CA850/2013 [2014] NZCA 40

Citation

(2014) 21 PRNZ 717
Court

Court of Appeal

The Registrar correctly refused to accept the stay application for filing because Court practice requires stay applications to be made first to the lower court where there is concurrent jurisdiction, no special circumstances justified departing from that practice, and the applicant had alternative routes (High Court or Tribunal) to seek a stay.