Cases Flashcards
Pickin v British Railway Board
Facts:
- P bought land beside railway
- Legislation said that if railway ceased to be used, the owner of the neighbouring land would get it
- In 1968, this was overturned
Held:
- Even if the British parliament were lied to – this is for them to worry about.
- Courts cannot look at the following of standing orders.
- Example of the courts avoiding interference with parliament
Attorney-General v Taylor
Courts can issue declarations of inconsistancy as this is within their constitutional role of interpreting and applying the law.
Webster v Police
Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others
Facts:
- After election, muldoon issued 2 press releases saying:
- They would abolish the superanuition scheme and repeal the act
- Because of this impending change, employers should stop paying into the scheme and there would be no punishment if they don’t pay
Issue: BOR
- S1 says the king cannot suspend the law of parliament
Held:
- Declaration of breach of law
- BUT, they won’t order everyone to start the scheme again as it will unquestionable dissappear anyway.
- The role of the courts where necessary in ensuring the political branches of government do what the law says.
Kiwi Party v Taylor
Facts:
- After mosque attacks
- Parliament moved quickly toamment/apply new gun laws
- Kiwi party claimed this penalised good gun owners unjustifiably
- Claim there is a constitutional right to bear arms in NZ.
Held:
- Parliament has never recognised a right to have guns
- Common law has recognised this but this is overruled by parliament’s right to regulate gun ownership.
- There is not this right to bear arms in NZ.
Quake Outcasts v Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery
Facts:
- Aftermath of 2 major chch earthquakes
- Govt announced offer to people in red zone:
1. Insured people – they will buy house at 100% of its value
2. Uninsured people – will buy house for 50% of its value, nothing extra for land
- Govt were trying to avoid moral hazard
- Challenged the legality of announcements saying 3rd source of power could not be used by the govt in this situation as the Canterbury Eartquake Recovery Act had been passed by parliament
Question:
- Was this act meant to be the only way the exec could deal with canterbury’s recovery?
Held:
- The exec can ONLY use this legislation to help Canterbury recover
- If statute gives powers that have contstraints on exec, they have to follow them
Borrowdale v Director-General of Health [2021]
The Minister of Children v The Waitangi Tribunal
Facts:
- Oranga tamariki act sets out the obigations of the state to vulnerable children
- S 7AA
- Requires oranga tamariki to comply with certain obligations under the treaty in respect of maori children
- The current government want to repeal this section
- Māori lodged claim with Waitangi Tribunal
- The minister refused to answer WT’s questions
- The tribunal issues a summons that she provide the info requested
Issue:
- Does the Tribunal have legal authority to force her to answer?
HC:
- Minister created her own problem but nevertheless the WT should not have issued summons - Comity
- If info was really important, they could summons a minister - but here the risk of breaching comity does not outweigh value of info.
- Public law is current law that continues to evolve and unfold around up.
Entick v Carrington 1765
Facts:
- MrEntick suspected by govt of being the author of articles containing slander/critique of govt (criminal offence)
- The Earl of Hallifax, wrote a warrentto search E’s house
- The three men given the warrant broke into E’s house, stayed for 4 hours, trashed it and left taking with them a lot of papers
- No evidence of crime found
- Sued in trespass
Held:
- To give authority,the minister who gave itmusthave a legalbasisto do so
- TheEoHhas no authority to issue the warrant
- Rule of law: executive must act under same laws as everyone else
