Attorney-General v Family First New Zealand

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 79/2020
[2020] NZSC 151

BETWEEN	ATTORNEY-GENERAL Applicant
AND	FAMILY FIRST NEW ZEALAND Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and O’Regan JJ
Counsel:	P J Gunn and A P Lawson for Applicant I C Bassett for Respondent
Judgment:	18 December 2020

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is granted (Family First New Zealand v Attorney‑General [2020] NZCA 366).
BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Applicant
Robert Brace Law Office, Porirua for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was called upon to determine an application for leave to appeal by the Attorney-General against a decision of the Court of Appeal. The respondent, Family First New Zealand, is a political party that was denied registration under the Electoral Act 1993. The dispute centred on whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal brought by Family First New Zealand, which sought to overturn the decision of the High Court that had refused their application for registration as a political party.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Court of Appeal had erred in law by allowing the appeal and granting leave to appeal. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the Court of Appeal had applied the correct legal standards in reviewing the decision of the High Court. The Attorney-General argued that the Court of Appeal had misapplied the principles governing the review of administrative decisions, while Family First New Zealand contended that the Court of Appeal had correctly exercised its discretion in allowing the appeal.

In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court carefully reviewed the judgments of both the Court of Appeal and the High Court. The Court found that the Court of Appeal had indeed applied the correct legal standards and exercised its discretion appropriately in allowing the appeal. The Court emphasised that the Court of Appeal had properly considered the principles of administrative law, particularly the scope of judicial review and the standard of review applicable to the decision of the High Court. The Court concluded that the Court of Appeal's decision to allow the appeal was consistent with established legal principles and did not represent an error of law. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The Supreme Court's judgment was that the Court of Appeal's decision was correct, and no further appeal would be entertained. The approved question was answered in the negative, affirming the Court of Appeal's decision.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established