IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2023-404-1176
[2024] NZHC 1897
UNDER
the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016
IN THE MATTER OF
an application for review of a decision under Clause 6 of Schedule 2 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009
BETWEEN
RAYMOND PHILLIP HALL
Applicant
AND
Billy Brown, Zoe Hawke, Kiwi Johnson, Mook Hohnek, David Taipari, Danella Roebeck, Taumata Toki, Nick Maaka, John McEnteer,
Riikii Minhinick, Aperahama Edwards, Michael Baker, Glenn Wilcox, Marama Royal, Karen Wilson, Edwards Ashby, William Peters, Anahera Morehu, Georgina Curtis-Conelly, Parekawhia McLean, AS MEMBERS OF THE SELECTION BODY ESTABLISHED UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (AUCKLAND COUNCIL) ACT 2009
First Respondent
Cont:/
Hearing:
24 June 2024
Appearances:
C B Hirschfeld and J P Hickey for Applicant
P F Majurey and T S D Hoby for First Respondent
Judgment:
11 July 2024
JUDGMENT OF O’GORMAN J
This judgment was delivered by me on 11 July 2024 at 4 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
…………………………………
HALL v BROWN [2024] NZHC 1897 [11 July 2024]
…cont’d
ANDTHE INDEPENDENT MĀORI STATUTORY BOARD
Second Respondent
Solicitors/Counsel:
Hickey Law, Auckland
C B Hirschfeld, Auckland
Holm Majurey Law, Auckland
[1] In this proceeding, Raymond Hall brings a judicial review challenge of the first respondent Selection Body’s decision that he was ineligible for appointment to the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) as a mataawaka1 representative.
[2] Prior to the judicial review application being set down for hearing, this judgment determines an application for discovery made by the applicant, Mr Hall. The applicant has sought the following categories of tailored discovery:
2.1All relevant documents of the Selection Body, including but not limited to:
(a)the information counsel for the first respondent provided on whakapapa for all applicants, i.e., Mr Hall, Mr Henare, and Mr Kake;
(b)the report by counsel for the first respondent to the Selection Body as referred to in paras 8 and 10a of Ms Wilson’s affidavit;
(c)evidence of all whakapapa enquiries made of all candidates, i.e., Mr Hall, Mr Henare, and Mr Kake, including copies of all documents, particularly given the comment in para 10f of Ms Wilson’s affidavit; and
(d)evidence of the whakapapa enquiries made by Ms Stones on all three candidates as referred to in para 10f of Ms Wilson’s affidavit.
1 This is the spelling adopted in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, but it can also be spelled “matāwaka”.
2.2The following further categories:
(a)all notes of all administrative and secretarial work carried out on behalf of the first respondent, including any of its members and/or for Auckland Council in relation to the first respondent, including work carried out by Ms Stones or any others working in the same or similar capacity for Holm Majurey (Atkins Holm Majurey);
(b)a copy of all internet searches carried out and any social media regarding whakapapa for Mr Henare, Mr Kake, and Mr Hall;
(c)in accordance with the minutes of the Selection Body…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Hall v Brown
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hall v Brown [2024] NZHC 1897
Case
[2024] NZHC 1897
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Hall v Brown, Raymond Hall challenges the decision of the Selection Body that he was ineligible for appointment as a mataawaka representative to the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB). The legal issues before the court include the discretionary nature of discovery in judicial review proceedings and the interpretation of the phrase "in a mana whenua group" within the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. The court examined the relevance and necessity of various categories of documents sought by Hall, balancing the principles of expediency and proportionality against the duty of candour owed by decision-makers. The court found that while some documents were already disclosed, certain key materials, such as the report provided to the Selection Body, were relevant and should be disclosed, subject to redactions for legally privileged information. The court also highlighted the importance of understanding the legal test applied by the Selection Body for determining eligibility. The final decision on the application for discovery was mixed, with some categories dismissed and others ordered to be disclosed within a specified timeframe. The court reserved the costs of the application pending the outcome of the substantive judicial review proceedings.