Add to ORKGThe Supreme Court of New Zealand’s decision in Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stitching Lodestar is the centrepiece of New Zealand’s complicated and confusing approach to appellate jurisdiction. This paper examines that approach, attempts to identify the reasons why it is confusing and lastly, suggests a potential path for reform and improvement
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) retains Parliament’s sovereign power to make law. H...
This article critically analyses two New Zealand Court of Appeal decisions involving a change of pos...
"Judicial review is not the same as appeal" is one of the more common epithets found in administrati...
The Supreme Court of New Zealand’s decision in Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stitching Lodestar is the ...
Variable intensity or standards of review is an issue that has long vexed many Commonwealth courts a...
The Supreme Court Act came into force 1 January 2004. It would be fair to describe the reactions to ...
This paper examines the New Zealand Court of Appeal’s decision in The Great Christchurch Buildings T...
In June 2007, the Court of Appeal in New Zealand disallowed the taxpayers appeal and decided that Tr...
In November 2013, after a series of Law Commission reports and years of academic, professional and j...
Australia and New Zealand concluded the Agreement on Trans-Tasman Court Proceedings and Regulatory E...
This thesis sets out to provide a deep analysis of the mechanisms for review of convictions in New Z...
This essay argues that New Zealand’s courts, when considering constitutional matters on which there ...
Unlike many common law jurisdictions, New Zealand does not have a statutory class action regime. I...
The New Zealand Supreme Court’s decision in Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington[1] was nothing less tha...
The well-documented Wool Board Disestablishment Co v Saxmere Co litigation thrust the often dormant ...
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) retains Parliament’s sovereign power to make law. H...
This article critically analyses two New Zealand Court of Appeal decisions involving a change of pos...
"Judicial review is not the same as appeal" is one of the more common epithets found in administrati...
The Supreme Court of New Zealand’s decision in Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stitching Lodestar is the ...
Variable intensity or standards of review is an issue that has long vexed many Commonwealth courts a...
The Supreme Court Act came into force 1 January 2004. It would be fair to describe the reactions to ...
This paper examines the New Zealand Court of Appeal’s decision in The Great Christchurch Buildings T...
In June 2007, the Court of Appeal in New Zealand disallowed the taxpayers appeal and decided that Tr...
In November 2013, after a series of Law Commission reports and years of academic, professional and j...
Australia and New Zealand concluded the Agreement on Trans-Tasman Court Proceedings and Regulatory E...
This thesis sets out to provide a deep analysis of the mechanisms for review of convictions in New Z...
This essay argues that New Zealand’s courts, when considering constitutional matters on which there ...
Unlike many common law jurisdictions, New Zealand does not have a statutory class action regime. I...
The New Zealand Supreme Court’s decision in Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington[1] was nothing less tha...
The well-documented Wool Board Disestablishment Co v Saxmere Co litigation thrust the often dormant ...
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) retains Parliament’s sovereign power to make law. H...
This article critically analyses two New Zealand Court of Appeal decisions involving a change of pos...
"Judicial review is not the same as appeal" is one of the more common epithets found in administrati...