Legal Research
Cases
Geary v Psychologists Board

Geary v Psychologists Board

Case [2009] NZSC 67 24 June 2009

Standing

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Cross-Examination

Administrative Law

Judicial Review

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 36/2009
[2009] NZSC 67

BETWEENIAN RUSSELL GEARY

Applicant

ANDTHE PSYCHOLOGISTS BOARD AND ANOR

Respondents

Court:Elias CJ, Blanchard and Tipping JJ
Counsel:A C Beck for Applicant

S C D A Gollin for First Respondent

Judgment:24 June 2009

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IS DISMISSED WITH COSTS OF $2,500 TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

REASONS
[1] The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants appeal against the High Court’s exercise of discretion refusing him leave to cross-examine certain deponents in his proceeding for judicial review. He now seeks leave for a second appeal to this Court. He wishes to challenge the long-standing rule that leave is necessary to cross-examine a deponent in a judicial review proceeding. We are not persuaded that such a challenge has any prospect of success. The approach which has been taken for many years in New Zealand, namely that cross-examination in judicial review proceedings will be permitted only on rare occasions when required by the interests of justice, is soundly based. Moreover, a similar approach applies in comparable jurisdictions.[1] Natural justice considerations and similar concerns are adequately met by the Court’s responsibility to grant leave where it is in the interests of justice.
[1]See, for example, Lord Diplock’s statement in O’Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237 at pp 283–283 that “it will only be on rare occasions that the interest of justice will require that leave be given for cross-examination of deponents” and Woolf, Jowell and Le Sueur (eds) De Smith’s Judicial Review (6th ed, 2007) p 849.
[2] In the instant case cross-examination has been sought for the purpose of exploring the possibility of bias on the part of members of the Board but we are satisfied that the Courts below did not err in concluding that the applicant’s allegations did not provide a sufficient basis for a departure from the general rule.
Solicitors:
Gault Mitchell, Wellington for Applicant
Minter Ellison Rudd Watts, Wellington for First Respondent

Details

AGLC: Geary v Psychologists Board [2009] NZSC 67
Case: [2009] NZSC 67
Decision Date: 24 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Geary v Psychologists Board, the applicant, Ian Russell Geary, sought leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision which had dismissed his appeal against the High Court's refusal to grant him leave to cross-examine certain deponents in his proceeding for judicial review. The primary respondents were the Psychologists Board and another party. The central issue in this case was whether the long-standing rule requiring leave for cross-examination in judicial review proceedings should be challenged and, if so, whether Geary’s allegations of bias against members of the Board provided a sufficient basis for departing from this rule.

The Supreme Court considered the established practice in New Zealand and similar jurisdictions that permit cross-examination in judicial review proceedings only on rare occasions when the interests of justice demand it. The Court noted that the requirement of leave for cross-examination serves to protect the efficiency and integrity of judicial review processes. The Court concluded that Geary’s allegations of bias did not substantiate a departure from this well-founded approach, as they did not sufficiently demonstrate the necessity for cross-examination in the interest of justice.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed Geary's application for leave to appeal, finding no merit in his challenge to the established rule. The Court also determined that the lower courts did not err in their assessment that the allegations of bias did not warrant a departure from the general rule against cross-examination in judicial review proceedings. As part of the dismissal, the Court ordered Geary to pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondent.

Orders