Staite v New Zealand Psychologists Board

[2025] NZHC 2408

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2025-485-492

[2025] NZHC 2408

UNDER

the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

IN THE MATTER

of an application for judicial review of a decision of the New Zealand Psychologists Board

BETWEEN

STEPHEN ARNOLD STAITE

Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND PSYCHOLOGISTS BOARD

Respondent

Hearing:	22 August 2025
Appearances:	H A Evans for Applicant A James for Respondent
Judgment:	22 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[Application for interim orders – results decision]

[1]                 The applicant, Dr Arnold Staite, is a registered psychologist. He seeks interim orders staying interim conditions of practice imposed by the New Zealand Psychologists Board pending determination of his application for judicial review.1

[2]                 I convened an urgent hearing this morning to consider the application for interim orders. Ms James made helpful submissions for the Board at short notice.

1      The interim conditions of practice were imposed under s 69(2)(b) of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003.

STAITE v NEW ZEALAND PSYCHOLOGISTS BOARD [2025] NZHC 2408 [22 August 2025]

[3]                 After discussion with counsel, I was satisfied the interests of justice favoured the making of “interim interim” orders for a period of a month. This outcome would balance Dr Staite’s short term interests given the impact of the practicing conditions, while providing the Board with an opportunity to return to the Court if necessary given the limited notice counsel had received of the hearing today.2

[4]                 The interim conditions of practice imposed (or confirmed) by the Board in a review decision of 4 July 2025 are that Dr Staite:

(a)is not to complete assessments at his home address or any other dwelling that would be considered living quarters;

(b)is to work “only under board approved supervision with regular reports to the Board”; and

(c)is “not [to] undertake any new work for the Family Court”.

[5]During the hearing:

(a)Mr Evans confirmed that his client is content to comply with the first condition at [4(a)] above, but the other conditions effectively put a complete halt to his practice and livelihood; and

(b)Ms James advised that without prejudice to its position, the Board may wish to give further consideration to the remaining interim conditions of practice in light of matters addressed at the hearing. 3

[6]                 Following further discussion with counsel, I indicated I would provide a brief results judgment without reasons but would reserve leave to the parties to require reasons should they wish.

2      There is no suggestion Dr Staite or his solicitors are responsible for this.

3      As Dr Staite’s only professional work is as a senior report writer for the Family Court, I understand the effect of the conditions has been to prevent him from completing existing obligations for that Court, and effectively brought an end to his practice as a registered psychologist.

[7]I therefore make the following orders:

(a)The second and third interim conditions of practice imposed by the respondent on the applicant — at [4(b) and (c)] above — are stayed until further order;

(b)The proceeding is to be recalled before me in a month for review of the orders, and whether they should be renewed;

(c)Costs are reserved; and

(d)Leave to apply is also reserved. This includes leave to seek a reasons judgment.

[8]                 If the interim position is able to be settled between the parties I would ask counsel to advise the Court by memorandum seeking a case management conference to advance the application for judicial review.

[9]I thank both counsel for their careful and helpful submissions at short notice.

Isac J

Solicitors:

Dentons, Wellington for Respondent