Skip to main content
Social Media
  • twitter
  • linkedin
Home
  • About the project
    • About the project
    • Partnerships and Collaborators
    • Coordination Unit
    • Project Management Team
    • International Network of Judges and Legal Scholars
    • Research assistants
  • Case Law Database
    • Case index
    • Database charts
  • News
    • News and announcements
    • Press newsroom
  • Resources
    • Working papers and other resources
    • Media kit
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

New Zealand, High Court of New Zealand, 8 June 2022, [2022] NZHC 1333

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
New Zealand
Case ID
[2022] NZHC 1333
Decision date
8 June 2022
Deciding body (English)
High Court of New Zealand
Type of body
Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Federal Court
Instance
Appellate on fact and law
Area
Immigration and asylum
Further areas addressed
  • Private and family life
  • Freedom of movement of people
Outcome of the decision
Claim inadmissible or rejected
Link to the full text of the decision
Decision_EN available on forms.justice.govt.nz

Case analisys

General Summary

The case challenged two federal government decisions relating to border closures, immigration and temporary entry visa for non-New Zealand citizens. The main rights involved were the right to family and the right to have a family. The applicants also claimed they were being discriminated against for their sexual orientation and their desire to live with their same sex partner. The Applicants sought judicial review of both decisions. Remedies sought were a declaration that the first decision was ultra vires and also a declaration that both decisions were discriminatory. The Court held that the decisions were not ultra vires or discriminatory and did not infringe on the Applicant’s rights.

Facts of the case

Two applications were heard together, relating to two parties. There were two decisions being challenged. Both parties had same sex spouses who were not New Zealand citizens and who were prevented from entering New Zealand due to the COVID 19 border closures. The first decision challenged was the Minister’s recommendation to Cabinet to extend the temporary suspension of the ability of most non-New Zealand citizens or New Zealand residents to apply for a temporary entry class visa. The extensions were to the duration of reg 9A of the Immigration (Visa, Entry Permission and Related Matters) Regulations 2010 (Regulations). The second decision challenged was the Minister’s certification of immigration instruction E13 which permits (but does not require) an immigration officer to lapse (remove) certain applications for temporary entry class visas received or unable to be processed during the period of border closure. Both partner’s visa applications were about to lapse due to their inability to satisfy the relationship provisions. A key condition of being classified as being in a “relationship” was to satisfy the living together provisions. Both the applicant’s partners were from countries where it was not possible to live together as a same sex couple due to cultural, societal or religious reasons. New Zealand was the only country where they could safely live together to satisfy their immigration/visa requirements but the COVID-19 border closure and immigration restrictions prevented the issuing of the necessary visa. The applicants claimed that this was an infringement of their right to family and was an arbitrary interference with their right to have a family. They further claimed it was discriminatory based on their sexual orientation. The Court held that neither the suspension nor the lapsing decisions were discriminatory and did not infringe on the applicants’ rights.

Type of measure challenged
  • National government measure
  • Federal government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Sought judicial review of the decisions and a declaration they were ultra vires and discriminatory
Individual / collective enforcement
Individual action brought by one or more individuals or legal persons exclusively in their own interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private individual
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Ordinary procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

The Court considered the application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as it related outside the jurisdiction of New Zealand. The Court considered Afghan Nationals v Minister of Immigration [2021] NZHC 3154 and concluded that there may be some extra-territorial operation of the Bill of Rights Act. However, ultimately the Court articulated that the proper question to be posed was whether public officials in New Zealand must consider consistency with the Bill of Rights Act when acting in a way which affects the lives and rights of individuals overseas. The Respondents’ threshold objection to whether the Bill of Rights applied in this circumstance was not successful. In relation to whether the decisions were discriminatory, the Court considered sections 19 and 21 of the Bill of Rights Act. The Applicants were required to show that the contested decisions disproportionately affected a subgroup of persons in a manner amounting to indirect discrimination. The Court held there was no evidence to support a finding that there had been a material disadvantage on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. As such the Court held that neither decision was discriminatory.

Conclusions of the deciding body

The Court determined that neither of the decisions were reviewable and as such the Applicants were unsuccessful. The decisions were upheld.

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
  • Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital
  • Right to marry
  • Right to privacy
  • Right to private and family life
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
  • Protection of family, Art. 10(1), International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights
  • Freedom from arbitrary or unlawful interference on family life, Art. 17, ICCPR
  • Freedom from discrimination, Section 19, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
  • Health v. freedom of movement of persons
  • Health v. right to privacy (private and family life)
  • Health v. immigrants’ fundamental rights
General principle applied
  • Equality
  • Non-discrimination
  • Due process
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)

The Court applied the principles of Reasonableness and Proportionality

Additional notes

Other notes

On the type of scope (material scope): The High Court is New Zealand’s only court of general jurisdiction

Author of the case note
Kirsty Mackie, Solicitor; Research Assistant, Australian Centre for Health Law Research, QUT
Case identified by
Professor Tina Cockburn, Chief Investigator, Australian Centre for Health Law Research, QUT
Published by Marco Nicolò on 7 February 2023

More cases from New Zealand

  • New Zealand, High Court of New Zealand, 16 August 2022, [2022] NZHC 2026
    Area: Health and freedom of association/public gathering/religion
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of association, Public gathering, Assembly; Freedom of expression; Freedom of religion
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • New Zealand, New Zealand High Court, 8 November 2021, ‎[2021] NZHC 3012
    Area: Vaccination
    Fundamentals rights involved: Other (Right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • New Zealand, High Court of New Zealand, 8 April 2022, NZDSOS Inc v Min. for Covid-19 Response, CIV-2021-485-595
    Area: Vaccination
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to bodily integrity; Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • New Zealand, High Court of New Zealand , 27 April 2022, Grounded Kiwis Group In. v Min. of Health, CIV-2021-485-556
    Area: Freedom of movement of people
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital
    Outcome: Claim partially upheld
  • New Zealand, High Court of New Zealand, 22 November 2021, NZHC 3154‎
    Area: Immigration and asylum
    Fundamentals rights involved: Other (Right to natural justice)
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • New Zealand, High Court of New Zealand, 28 October 2021, NZHC 2897‎
    Area: Scope of powers of public authorities (legislative, executive etc.)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital; Other (Freedom to re-enter the country of residence without unreasonable ‎limitation)
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from New Zealand

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. New Zealand, High Court of New Zealand, 8 June 2022, [2022] NZHC 1333
home

This project and its database have been made possible with the financial support from the World Health Organization

www.covid19litigation.org is run and maintained by the University of Trento
Via Calepina 14, I-38122 Trento (Italy) — P. Iva/C.F. IT-00340520220

Social Media Links

  • twitter
  • linkedin

Terms of use

www.covid19litigation.org
Site purpose

This site is for informational use only. Case law summaries are not legal advices and may not be relied on as such. Anyone seeking for legal advice should obtain appropriate legal counsel.

Site operation

This site may not be fully up-to-date (for example, cases may be reviewed, reversed, or appealed). This site may be taken down at any time without notice. The case law summaries provided on this site may be incomplete or outdated.

Copyright

Any files provided on this site were taken from a source that is, to the University of Trento and its Partners' best knowledge, from a freely available public resource, however, any further use of such files is at the user’s responsibility.

Responsibility

This site is maintained by the University of Trento, with financial support from the World Health Organization (WHO). The University of Trento will not be responsible for any use of the site.

No endorsement

Inclusion of a case on the website does not necessarily involve a view, position, or endorsement by the University of Trento or the WHO, including with respect to any legal matter. The site is not a product of WHO and does not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the WHO.

User account menu

  • Log in

Footer menu

  • Contacts
  • Terms of use
  • Privacy
  • Cookies