Fang v Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

Case [2017] NZCA 7

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA369/2016
[2017] NZCA 7
BETWEEN

MINGBO FANG
Appellant

AND

THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT
Respondent

CA370/2016

BETWEEN

THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT
Appellant

AND

DEFANG DONG
Respondent

CA423/2016

BETWEEN

THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT
Appellant

AND

ZHIWEI LI
Respondent
Hearing:

7 February 2017

Court:

Wild, French and Brown JJ

Counsel:

D Zhang for Appellant Fang and Respondent Dong
I C Carter for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
S C Kilian for Respondent Li

Judgment:

9 February 2017 at 4.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for review is dismissed.

BCosts are reserved and will be determined in the reasons judgment to follow.

____________________________________________________________________

[Reasons to follow]

Solicitors:
Amicus Law, Auckland for Appellant Fang and Respondent Dong
Kilian & Associates Ltd, Albany for Respondent Li
Crown Law Office, Wellington for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

Details
AGLC
Fang v Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2017] NZCA 7
Case
[2017] NZCA 7
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand recently heard three appeals concerning the revocation of New Zealand resident visas. The appellants in these cases, Mingbo Fang, Defang Dong, and Zhiwei Li, sought to challenge the decisions made by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) to revoke their visas. The Ministry cross-appealed the decision, seeking to affirm the revocation of the visas. The appellants argued that the Ministry's decisions were unreasonable and breached their rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

The court was required to determine the appropriate standard of review for the Ministry's decisions, and whether the decisions were indeed unreasonable. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Ministry's decisions were so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have made them. The court also had to consider the appellants' argument that the revocation of their visas breached their rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

The court held that the appropriate standard of review was that of Wednesbury unreasonableness, and that the Ministry's decisions were not unreasonable. The court found that the Ministry had acted within its lawful powers in revoking the appellants' visas, and that the decisions did not breach the appellants' rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The court held that the appellants had failed to demonstrate that the Ministry's decisions were so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have made them.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants' applications for review and affirmed the Ministry's decisions to revoke their visas. The court also dismissed the Ministry's cross-appeals. Costs were reserved and will be determined in the reasons judgment to follow.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.