Procedural Grounds On Which Andrea And Billie Could Challenge The Minister 's Decision

717 Words Aug 7th, 2016 3 Pages
I have been asked to assess the procedural grounds on which Andrea and Billie could challenge the Minister’s decision.

Procedural Impropriety:

Every case comes with fair hearing rights. The nature of this decision is a typical permitting process. The Minister makes the decision, and it is not a high policy decision. In Daganayasi it is stated that administrative decisions omit certain rights due to efficiency. It should be noted that Andrea and Billie have saved up and mortgaged their house to secure a loan in order to produce the preserves. The statutory scheme makes no mention of what natural rights should be allowed, however they were granted the right to a written submission and reason as to why the application was denied.

Andrea and Billie would be unlikely to successfully challenge the Minister on the sub ground of bias under the procedural impropriety scope, because although the Minister is a member of the same sailing club as the owner of Collingwood Chutney, they are not close friends and New Zealand has a small population, therefore naturally there will be people who know each other. Saxmere test for bias states that friendship is not an issue in itself.
To act consistently with some previous representation, or in accordance with how other similar cases have been treated is a legitimate expectation. The Minister accepted Collingwood Chutney’s use of Mello. However, it is not for Collingwood Chutney to object over whether Andrea and Billie’s product is…

Related Documents