My research list

Loading My Research List ...

Save my research

Don't lose any of your research. Fill out the form below and have your research list emailed to you.

Judicial Review

In recent years we’ve seen a rise in the use of judicial reviews to challenge the decisions, and decision making processes, of regulators and other bodies.

Our team of experienced litigators has an enviable track record in this area, acting for a wide range of Crown entities, local authorities, and public and private companies.

Advising decision makers and defending challenges

We act for Crown, Crown entity and local government decision makers to assist in getting the decision making process right, and when needed, to defend their decisions from challenge in Court. Our understanding of the operation of the core and wider Crown, and of local government, mean that we deeply understand the issues in play and the challenges of public decision making.

Engaging with government and challenging decisions

We also act for a range of public and private companies and entities who disagree with public law decisions made in relation to their core interests. We advise on how to engage with government departments, regulators and public decision makers and, where necessary, how to challenge these decisions.

Interim Orders applications and injunctions

Our team are also experienced in both securing and responding to urgent interim orders applications and injunctions seeking to prevent public law decisions coming into effect. Sometimes, these matters need to be decided in Court and we have a track record of successfully securing results for our clients.

Recent work examples 

  • Challenges brought by ‘public interest’ and community groups to our client’s decisions, or decisions our clients benefited from, including
    • Oceana Gold in a challenge by Coromandel Watchdog to its actions in Waihi
    • OMV in its successful defence of a challenge by Greenpeace NZ to EPA decision-making processes relating to oil and gas exploration in the Great South Basin
    • Auckland Council in a challenge brought by protesters occupying Owairaka/Mt Albert who oppose an extensive tree removal programme
    • South Taranaki District Council in its successful defence of a challenge to its decision to add fluoride to the drinking water supplies for Patea and Waverley.
  • Local authorities, including:
    • Auckland Council in its successful defence of challenges to its introduction of the accommodation provider targeted rate on commercial accommodation providers
    • Napier City Council in its successful defence of challenges to its decision to close an aquatic centre and build a new pool complex at a different location
    • Thames-Coromandel District Council in its successful defence of proceedings brought against its freedom camping bylaw
    • Northland Regional Council and Kaipara District Council in their successful defence of various illegality challenges to rates, due dates for payment of rates, and collection arrangements for rates.
  • Overseas Investment Act - acting for a number of overseas investors in both challenging and defending overseas investment approvals and Ministerial decisions.

  • Acting for and against Crown regulators, including:
    • For WorkSafe in a judicial review following the White Island/Whakaari eruption
    • Bringing judicial review proceedings against the regulatory decisions of NZQA on behalf of a large Private Training Establishment.
  • Fire and Emergency New Zealand - acting for FENZ as a respondent in a challenge to the scope of Ministerial powers of direction under the Crown Entities Act.

  • Interim Orders applications and injunctions, including:
    • Bunnings New Zealand - successfully resisting an interim orders application which would have had the effect of delaying an imminent Tribunal hearing, on the basis of judicial bias and predetermination allegations
    • New Zealand Defence Force - successfully resisting an interim orders application to prevent the discharge of a naval rating on behalf of the New Zealand Navy, where legitimate expectation and discrimination were alleged.