Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
21 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service |
Minister for the Civil Service made the decision to restrict the ability of his civil servants (spies) to join trade unions except one because the industrial unrest constituted a national security threat. Authority came from royal prerogative.
Prerogative Powers |
|
|
Peters v Davison |
Winston Peters alleged that the IRD was corrupt in not noticing transactions going through the Cook Island.
Error of law-> the Commission of Inquiry misunderstood some elements of the law relating to tax invasion.
Error of law is a ground of review in and of itself. |
|
|
Carter Holt Harvey v North Shore City Council |
The Council passed a bylaw that the collection and transportation of waste must only be done if you have a license (Carter Holt Harvey did not have one). Is recycled paper waste? Power came from statute.
Error of law-> Power conferred by the Act was for waste management. If recycled paper was not waste then the Council did not have authority. |
|
|
Moxon |
Approval of a river side casino in Hamilton and how to mitigate the harm it would cause.
Matter for decision maker not the courts. It is not the function of this court to assess the strength of the evidence and review the merits of the conclusion of the authority.
Error of fact |
|
|
Oggi Advertising |
EyeSpy claimed their billboard was constructed in 1995 because a law change meant they could not get a permit if it had been constructed after 1996. This was a lie, was constructed in 2002.
Error of fact.
Grave mistake of fact before it is reviewable. |
|
|
Unison Networks |
A decision is only reviewable and can be held invalid if the improper purpose thwarts or runs counter to the statutory purpose for which the power was conferred.
Improper purpose. |
|
|
Roncarelli v Duplessis |
Jehovah's Witness had his restaurant license cancelled because he was bailing fellows out of jail.
Improper purpose.
Even though there was no explicit statement of the purpose in the Act. |
|
|
NZ Fishing |
Fishing Board controlled the quotas depending on fish stocks. GG raised the price by 25% on the advice of the Minister. Power was conferred by the Fisheries Act but s107(G)(6) says the Minister should advise the Board and invite submissions (this was done). Section 7(d) says these submissions made must be considered.
Relevancy.
Final result and weighting is a matter of policy for the decision maker not the courts. |
|
|
M v Syms |
Boys consumed small quantities of alcohol while on a school sports trip. Were suspended and expelled pursuant to school policies.
Fettering of discretion.
Decision maker rigidly applied policy without considering the individual circumstances of the case.
Error of law.
Misinterpreted "gross misconduct." |
|
|
Wednesbury |
Theatre had a license allowing them to remain open on Sundays subject to certain conditions that the licensing authority saw fit to impose (children under 15 banned when unaccompanied by parents).
Unreasonableness.
The decision was one that any reasonable body could have come to- it was not so outrageous that a reasonable body could not have come to it. |
|
|
Woolworths |
Unreasonableness.
If the outcome of a decision is irrational or such that no reasonable body of persons could have arrived at the decision, the only proper inference is that the power itself has been misused. |
|
|
Wolf v Minister of Immigration |
W, a German citizen, was sentenced to 6 yrs imprisonment but escaped to Nz on a false passport. Got married, had children. Marriage failed. Wife ousted him. Was potentially going to be deported.
Unreasonableness.
Decision was unreasonable in finding he was indifferent to his children by not telling them his real name when in fact there was unchallenged evidence of a strong relationship.
Wild J suggested a test of simple unreasonableness. |
|
|
AG for Ontario/Brind |
Various members of terrorist organisations were prohibited from being broadcasted on BBC. One group claimed their rights under the ECHR were breached.
Relevancy Principle
Where there is ambiguity in a statute international law can be used to clarify that obligation. |
|
|
Ashby v Minister of Immigration |
Minister used his discretion to grant the Springbok rugby team temporary entry permits to tour NZ whilst SA was in a state of apartheid. CERD was ratified in NZ.
Relevancy principle.
A treaty might be a mandatory relevant consideration where, as a matter of statutory construction it was of such overwhelming or manifest importance to be taken into account. |
|
|
Tavita v Minister of Immigration |
Samoan citizen overstated his visitors permit in NZ and was ordered to be removed. Appealed, married and had a child. There was an attempt to remove him in 1993 when the Convention on the Rights of the Child was ratified.
Relevancy principle.
You do not need extreme relevance but if an international treaty is relevant it should be taken into consideration and not doing so is a reviewable error. |
|
|
Puli'uvea |
Plaintiffs were Tongan overstayers. Father was deported but wife and 4 children still NZ. Removal Review Authority declined the appeal as there was not exceptional humanitarian circumstances. There was no explicit reference to international authorities.
Presumption of Consistency
Obiter- The courts should strive to interpret legislation consistently with treaty obligations. |
|
|
Zaoui |
Zaoui arrived in NZ claiming refugee status and danger to his life if sent back. Faced accusations he was part of a terrorist group. Minister issued a security risk certificate against him. Whilst NZ has an obligation to accept refugees there is an exception if he is reasonably a security risk. Section 8 right to life.
Presumption of consistency.
Where it can be done so, decisions should be made in accordance with international obligations. |
|
|
Daganayasi |
D arrived in NZ, had child George with health problems. Doctors notes initially supported extending her permit because there was insufficient protein in the form of cheese in Fiji and George was a potential teaching resource. Later when George's condition improved this changed to Dr Blake Palmer reporting they could be deported to Fiji but this was not an accurate summary of Prof Elliott's views.
Mistake of fact that the Minister had the most recent and up to date medical info (only supported by Cooke J).
Principles of natural justice breached as D did not have fair opportunity to correct or contradict statements made against her.
The elements of natural justice vary with the circumstances. |
|
|
Saxmere v Wool Board (No 1) |
Wilson J and QC Gailbraith (counsel for Wool Board) were close friends and in a business partnership.
Rule Against Bias- would a fair-minded lay observer reasonably apprehend the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question the judge is required to answer? |
|
|
Ebner |
1. Identification of what it is said might lead the judge to decide a case other than on its legal and factual merits. 2. An articulation of the logical connection between the matter and the feared deviation from the course of deciding the case on its merits. |
|
|
Saxmere v Wool Board (No 2) |
Recall of No 1 because evidence emerged that Wilson J and Gailbraith were actively conducting business and indebted by a material cost of $75,000.
Appeal remitted for rehearing to the CoA with a new panel of judges. NB: Saxmere lost again. |
