McConnor v Auckland Transport - [2025] NZHC 2819

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-1824

[2025] NZHC 2819

UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016, the Social Security Act 2018, and s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

IN THE MATTER

of an application for judicial review

BETWEEN

JAMES JOHN MCCONNOR

Applicant

AND

AUCKLAND TRANSPORT

First respondent

THE REGISTRAR OF THE DISTRICT COURT, AUCKLAND

(FINES COLLECTION UNIT)

Second respondent

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Third respondent

Judicial review list: 24 September 2025

Appearances:

Applicant in person

PMS McNamara for first respondent

J K Williams and L E Sinclair for second respondent R L Grierson and ENC Lay for third respondent

Date of judgment:

26 September 2025

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

[Recusal]

This reasons for judgment was delivered by me on 26 September 2025 at 3.00pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

MCCONNOR v AUCKLAND TRANSPORT [2025] NZHC 2819 [26 September 2025]

[1] For this proceeding’s intended first call in the judicial review list before another Judge,1 Mr McConnor sought my recusal. That application was referred to me. In the abstract, the application was meaningless, as nothing in this proceeding then was allocated for my decision.2

[2] At the outset of the proceeding’s call before me in the judicial review list on 24 September 2025, I asked Mr McConnor if he maintained his application for my recusal. He said he did. I asked if he wished to add anything in support of his application. He said he did not. I then declined to recuse myself, with reasons to follow. These are those.

[3]Mr McConnor says he:

… holds a genuine and reasonable apprehension that he would not receive a fair hearing should Justice Jagose be involved in this matter. This apprehension is based on a consistent pattern of judicial conduct and judicial pronouncements made by His Honour in two previous and separate judicial review proceedings, the consequences of the second of which directly led to the harm giving rise to the current proceeding.

He says I there “expressed a strong, unprompted, and preliminary view that [his] proceedings constitute an abuse of process”, such as “raises a reasonable apprehension that [I have] formed a settled negative view of [his] public law claims”. He contends I am so “[un]familiar with public law jurisprudence [I] could not preside fairly over a public law matter”. He says my latter decision,3 which he has sought to appeal,4 has caused him “tangible injury”, “reinforc[ing] the apprehension [my] initial order was not impartial”. He claims I verbally threatened him at its 17 July 2024 hearing, intimidating him into silence, demonstrating my “lack of impartiality or a pre-disposition against [his] case”. Cumulatively, he argues, these “[i]ndividually …

1 McConnor v Auckland Transport HC Auckland CIV-2025-404-1824, 26 August 2025 (Minute of Peters J).
2 D v N [2023] NZSC 99 at [3], reciting the President of the Court of Appeal’s…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read McConnor v Auckland Transport and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 2819
Decision Date: 26 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, James John McConnor brought an application for judicial review against Auckland Transport and two other respondents. McConnor sought to challenge a decision made by the Registrar of the District Court, Auckland (Fines Collection Unit), which was argued to be unlawful and a violation of his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the judge presiding over the case, Justice Jagose, should recuse themselves due to potential bias based on previous interactions with McConnor in other judicial review proceedings.

The court assessed the application for recusal based on the High Court recusal guidelines, which require that a fair-minded, fully informed observer would have a reasonable apprehension of bias if the judge were to remain on the case. Justice Jagose considered the nature of the previous cases, the preliminary views expressed, and the consequences of the decisions. The court concluded that there was no logical or sufficient connection between Justice Jagose's earlier involvement and the current case, and that the judge's active management of judicial review proceedings did not constitute bias. The application for recusal was therefore declined.

Justice Jagose determined that a fair-minded observer would understand the role of judicial review and the necessity of managing such proceedings efficiently. The judge's earlier decisions and preliminary views, even if they involved McConnor, did not indicate an extreme or unbalanced predisposition that would lead to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As such, Justice Jagose remained on the case to proceed with the judicial review application.

Orders