New Zealand Law Review - Published Issues - 2008 - Issue 3

Issue 3
 

Table of Contents

  • Proportionality, Deference, Wednesbury
    By Michael Taggart

    This is an opinionated attempt to chart the future direction of unreasonableness review of discretionary power in New Zealand administrative law over the short-to-medium term. First, I survey the proportionality versus Wednesbury (un)reasonableness debate in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Then I argue that proportionality should replace “variable Wednesbury (un)reasonableness review” where human and other “fundamental” rights are directly engaged, and that in other cases involving “public wrongs” (where “rights” are not directly engaged) Wednesbury unreasonableness in the traditional sense should be retained and applied. Drawing a line between “rights” and “public wrongs” — however difficult in borderline cases — should encourage lawyers, judges, and jurists to think carefully about where the case should be situated on the “rainbow of review” and why. While it is highly unlikely that this article will stem the torrent of discussion on this topic, it will be my last word on the subject.

  • Remedies and Accountability for Unlawful Judicial Action in New Zealand: Could the Law be Tidier?
    By BV Harris

    An eclectic suite of New Zealand laws currently provides avenues to remedies, and accountability, for unlawful judicial action. This article critically measures that suite of laws against the ideals of complete remedies for victims of unlawful judicial action, appropriate judicial accountability, and maintenance of the judiciary’s independence. Ideas are advanced as to how the law may possibly be developed in order to better fulfil these ideals.

  • Breach of Confidence: the Indirect Recipient
    By Paul Sumpter

    Is the law of breach of confidence in New Zealand becoming clearer or is it still mired in confusion? The recent New Zealand Court of Appeal decision in Hunt v A [2008] 1 NZLR 368 referred to “the unfortunate lingering debate” surrounding the cause of action. However, with a growing mass of case law from which to glean principles and the tort of privacy that has split off in New Zealand, perhaps the rules are now more sharply defined. This short article explores the liability of third parties and indirect recipients for breach of confidence in New Zealand.

New Zealand Law Review Published Issues