Environmental Law
Added on 2022-12-18
8 Pages2443 Words52 Views
|
|
|
Running head: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
1ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Subject to the decision of a Tribunal, any party to a case could apply for a judicial
review in case the party is dissatisfied with the decision of the tribunal and seeks redressal.
The appeal for such judicial review is redirected to the High Court. Therefore it is implied
that issues pertaining to legal dilemmas or dissatisfaction could only be raised, not an issue
regarding a fact. When a party counters the decision of a tribunal, it counters the exercise of
statutory power of such tribunal. An application of the judicial review must be filed within
the 28 days from the date on the decision was pronounced by the tribunal1. Judicial review in
New Zealand is governed by the Judicature Act 1908 and its amendments (Judicature
Amendment Act 1972) along with the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016. Therefore, this
paper shall strive to advise the National Butterfly Association in regard to its application of
judicial review, as to whether the decision made by the Tribunal could be challenged and if
challenged then on what grounds the application could be based.
The tribunals of New Zealand have been formed as a ‘substitute for adjudication by
the court’ and are regarded as a part of the judicial machinery of the state. However, even
though the tribunals have been given a ‘quasi-judicial’ status, it does not necessarily mean
that they are a substitute for courts, even though they have been created to relieve the burden
of the court. Tribunals are placed at a spectrum of administrative action at one end and
judicial conduct at another end. In the case of Air Nelson Ltd v Minister of Transport [2008]
NZAR 139 the High Court had held that tribunals shall determine to be adjudicative in nature,
deciding impartially between parties in conflict. It is recognized that the decision making
process of the tribunal is similar to that of judicial process with an assurance that the
aggrieved party or the dissatisfied party shall have an opportunity to move ahead with a
process of judicial review with the High Court by submitting proofs and reasonable
arguments in front of a judge who must be impartial to the case. If a party could prove that
1 Tushnet, Mark. "New forms of judicial review and the persistence of rights-and democracy-based worries."
2017 Bills of Rights. Routledge,. 265-290.
Subject to the decision of a Tribunal, any party to a case could apply for a judicial
review in case the party is dissatisfied with the decision of the tribunal and seeks redressal.
The appeal for such judicial review is redirected to the High Court. Therefore it is implied
that issues pertaining to legal dilemmas or dissatisfaction could only be raised, not an issue
regarding a fact. When a party counters the decision of a tribunal, it counters the exercise of
statutory power of such tribunal. An application of the judicial review must be filed within
the 28 days from the date on the decision was pronounced by the tribunal1. Judicial review in
New Zealand is governed by the Judicature Act 1908 and its amendments (Judicature
Amendment Act 1972) along with the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016. Therefore, this
paper shall strive to advise the National Butterfly Association in regard to its application of
judicial review, as to whether the decision made by the Tribunal could be challenged and if
challenged then on what grounds the application could be based.
The tribunals of New Zealand have been formed as a ‘substitute for adjudication by
the court’ and are regarded as a part of the judicial machinery of the state. However, even
though the tribunals have been given a ‘quasi-judicial’ status, it does not necessarily mean
that they are a substitute for courts, even though they have been created to relieve the burden
of the court. Tribunals are placed at a spectrum of administrative action at one end and
judicial conduct at another end. In the case of Air Nelson Ltd v Minister of Transport [2008]
NZAR 139 the High Court had held that tribunals shall determine to be adjudicative in nature,
deciding impartially between parties in conflict. It is recognized that the decision making
process of the tribunal is similar to that of judicial process with an assurance that the
aggrieved party or the dissatisfied party shall have an opportunity to move ahead with a
process of judicial review with the High Court by submitting proofs and reasonable
arguments in front of a judge who must be impartial to the case. If a party could prove that
1 Tushnet, Mark. "New forms of judicial review and the persistence of rights-and democracy-based worries."
2017 Bills of Rights. Routledge,. 265-290.
2ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
the adjudicator was partial towards the other party for being related to such other party, the
aggrieved party shall have a major ground to opt for a judicial review, seeking an impartial
decision of the honorable court.
Grounds
An application for judicial review in the High Court shall be filled either as a
statement of claim or as a notice of proceeding as per section 8 of the Judicial Review
Procedure Act 20162. The High Court, in case of a judicial review, may overturn the
decision of a tribunal and other quasi-judicial on the grounds that:
The decision of the tribunal was made under the mistake of fact or mistake of law;
The decision of the tribunal was made on by ignoring relevant factors;
The decision of the tribunal was made for purposes that are improper;
The decision of the tribunal was according to the rules of natural justice; it was either
biased or based on a policy that was changed without intimation.
Actions of Judicial review
In case the judges of the High Court agree to the petition of judicial review, the judge
could cancel or quash the decision of the tribunal (known as ‘Certiorari’)3. The judges may
also order the tribunal to take a particular action (known as ‘Mandamus’) so that it may
reconsider its decision and deliver a revised one in favour of the aggrieved party4. A party
may approach for judicial review in advance, even when the tribunal has not delivered its
decision in case it feels that the tribunal may deliver an adverse decision. In such situation,
the judge of a High Court has the power to prohibit the tribunal to take such an adverse
decision against the party applying for the judicial review (known as ‘Prohibition’ or
‘injunction’)5. The judges in this course may make an order of ‘declaration’ for pronouncing
2 Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016, s 8.
3 Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016, s 16(1)(a)
4 Ibid.
5 Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016, s 16(1)(b)
the adjudicator was partial towards the other party for being related to such other party, the
aggrieved party shall have a major ground to opt for a judicial review, seeking an impartial
decision of the honorable court.
Grounds
An application for judicial review in the High Court shall be filled either as a
statement of claim or as a notice of proceeding as per section 8 of the Judicial Review
Procedure Act 20162. The High Court, in case of a judicial review, may overturn the
decision of a tribunal and other quasi-judicial on the grounds that:
The decision of the tribunal was made under the mistake of fact or mistake of law;
The decision of the tribunal was made on by ignoring relevant factors;
The decision of the tribunal was made for purposes that are improper;
The decision of the tribunal was according to the rules of natural justice; it was either
biased or based on a policy that was changed without intimation.
Actions of Judicial review
In case the judges of the High Court agree to the petition of judicial review, the judge
could cancel or quash the decision of the tribunal (known as ‘Certiorari’)3. The judges may
also order the tribunal to take a particular action (known as ‘Mandamus’) so that it may
reconsider its decision and deliver a revised one in favour of the aggrieved party4. A party
may approach for judicial review in advance, even when the tribunal has not delivered its
decision in case it feels that the tribunal may deliver an adverse decision. In such situation,
the judge of a High Court has the power to prohibit the tribunal to take such an adverse
decision against the party applying for the judicial review (known as ‘Prohibition’ or
‘injunction’)5. The judges in this course may make an order of ‘declaration’ for pronouncing
2 Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016, s 8.
3 Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016, s 16(1)(a)
4 Ibid.
5 Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016, s 16(1)(b)
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents