Below is a selection of significant judgments (High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and Privy Council) in cases where Gillian has appeared as counsel. Please scroll down:
|Middeldorp v Avondale Jockey Club  NZHC 901 (High Court)||Acting for the respondent, a thoroughbred racing club, in its successful defence of a wide-ranging judicial review application. The judgment contains a detailed discussion of the grounds of review, and demonstrates a robust approach to the remedial discretion|
|Cullen Group Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue  NZHC 404 (High Court)||Acting for the Commissioner in a 3 week high profile tax avoidance trial. The Court held that the scheme was tax avoidance and that over $112 million was payable by Cullen Group.|
|Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Cullen Group Ltd  NZCA 166; (2018) 28 NZTC 23-059 (Court of Appeal)
Cullen Group Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue  NZHC 3260 (High Court)
|Acting for the Commissioner in resisting further discovery of documents said to be “extrinsic aids” relevant to a statutory interpretation issue. The Court of Appeal judgment is novel in that the Commissioner’s appeal was allowed by consent.|
|Erceg v Erceg  NZSC 28 (Supreme Court)||Acting for trustees in a test case regarding the approach the courts should take to an application by a discretionary beneficiary for access to trust information. The case is notable in that the trustees successfully defended their decision not to disclose any documents, even the trust deed.|
|Erceg v Erceg  NZSC 135 (Supreme Court)||A ruling on the principles that determine when the Supreme Court will grant a non-publication order binding on the public at large in a civil case.|
|E v Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment  NZHC 2599 (High Court)||Judicial review. Refugee case. Successful application (as counsel assisting the Court advancing argument for the applicant) for leave to commence proceeding out of time. In issue was whether earlier credibility findings could be relied on to reject an expert medical report containing findings “highly consistent” with torture.|
|Erceg v Erceg  NZCA 7,  2 NZLR 622 (Court of Appeal)
Erceg v Erceg  NZHC 594;  4 NZTR 25-010, (2015) NZAR 1239  NZAR 1239 (High Court)
Erceg v Erceg  NZHC 915 (High Court)
|Acting for trustees in a proceeding brought by a discretionary beneficiary seeking access to trust information. The Court of Appeal took the opportunity to restate the relevant principles. Also in issue was whether an interest under a discretionary trust can constitute “property” as defined in the Insolvency Act 2006|
|Taylor v Attorney-General  NZHC 1659 (High Court)||Judicial review of new regulations to enforce smoking ban in prisons. Appointed as counsel assisting the Court, and successfully argued that the regulations were invalid.|
|Carroll v Coroner’s Court at Auckland  NZHC 906;  NZAR 650 (High Court)||Judicial review of a finding by a Coroner in relation to the disappearance of Iraena Asher. Appointed as counsel assisting the Court.|
|Taylor v Manager of Auckland Prison  NZHC 3591 (High Court)||Judicial review of a rule banning smoking by prisoners. Appointed as counsel assisting the Court, and successfully argued that the rule was invalid.|
|Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Ltd v Commerce Commission  NZCA 344 (Court of Appeal)
Telecom Corporation of New Zealand v Commerce Commission Ltd  NZCA 278 (Court of Appeal)
Commerce Commission v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Ltd (2011) 13 TCLR 270;  NZCCLR 19 (High Court)
Commerce Commission v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Ltd, High Court, 9 October 2009, Rodney Hansen J, Professor Martin Richardson
|Acting for Commission in a proceeding against Telecom for taking advantage of its market power in its wholesale pricing of high speed data services (“data tails”) in breach of s 36 of the Commerce Act 1986. A record penalty of $12m was awarded by the High Court. Telecom’s liability was confirmed (and extended) on appeal. The Court of Appeal subsequently also upheld the $12m penalty. The case is an important new precedent in competition law.|
|Waikato Regional Airport Ltd v Comptroller of Customs  NZAR 43 (High Court)||Acting for WRAL in a judicial review of a decision of the Comptroller of Customs to charge WRAL for passenger clearance services. The decision was declared unlawful on the ground of improper purpose.|
|Commerce Commission v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Ltd  1 NZLR 577 (Supreme Court).
Commerce Commission v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Limited (2009) 12 TCLR 457;  NZCCLR 10 (Court of Appeal)
|Acting for Commission in a proceeding against Telecom alleging that in introducing its “0867” scheme Telecom took advantage of its market power in breach of s 36 of the Commerce Act. In the Supreme Court the principal issue was whether the New Zealand Courts should continue to apply the Privy Council’s “counterfactual test” as the sole test of taking advantage of market power.|
|SkyCity Auckland Ltd v Gambling Commission  2 NZLR 183 (Court of Appeal).
SkyCity Auckland Ltd v Gambling Commission, High Court, 24 August 2006, Cooper J.
|Acting for SkyCity in a test case seeking a declaration on the proper interpretation of certain key provisions of the Gambling Act 2003.|
|Lai v Chamberlains  2 NZLR 7 (Supreme Court).
Lai v Chamberlains  3 NZLR 291 (Court of Appeal).
Lai v Chamberlains  2 NZLR 374 (High Court).
|Counsel for the New Zealand Bar Association as intervenor in a test case about barrister’s immunity|
|Commerce Commission v Telecom Corporation of NZ Ltd (2006) 18 PRNZ 251 (Court of Appeal).||Electronic discovery issues, in context of a proceeding under s 36 of the Commerce Act. Test case on issue of cost-shifting in electronic discovery, and the obligation to preserve e-documents in a readily retrievable form.|
|SkyCity Auckland Ltd v Gambling Commission, High Court, 22 November 2005, Lang J||Acting for SkyCity in an appeal from a decision of Gambling Commission, the issue being whether electronic roulette is a gaming machine or table game.|
|Harley v McDonald  2 WLR 749;  1 NZLR 1 (Privy Council).
Harley v McDonald  3 NZLR 545 (Court of Appeal).
|Acting for the appellant in a test case on the jurisdiction of Court to award costs against a barrister personally. The case also involved Issues relating to natural justice in the particular circumstances.|
|Man O’War Station v Auckland City Council  2 NZLR (Court of Appeal).||Acting for appellant in case relating to doctrine of implied dedication of land.|
|Queenstown Casinos Ltd v Dunedin City Council  NZRMA 209 (High Court).||Acting for QCL in a judicial review of the issue of a compliance certificate to Dunedin Casinos Ltd by the Dunedin City Council.|
|New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General  3 NZLR 140 (Court of Appeal).
New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General, High Court, 29 March 1996, McGechan J
|Acting for NZMC in proceedings to attempt to prevent the sale by the Crown of commercial radio assets. Treaty of Waitangi issues.|
|Auckland Casino Ltd v Casino Control Authority, Court of Appeal, CA 181/94, 7 March 1995.
Auckland Casino Limited v Casino Control Authority  1 NZLR 142 (Court of Appeal).
Auckland Casino Limited v Casino Control Authority, High Court, 31 August 1994, Robertson J.
|Acting for the second respondent, Sky Tower Casino Ltd defending a judicial review challenge to a decision by the Casino Control Authority granting it a casino premises licence. This decision remains an important authority on the doctrine of apparent bias and on the factors governing the Court’s exercise of its remedial discretion.|
|Ancient Trees of New Zealand v Attorney-General, High Court, 29 April 1994, McGechan J||Judicial review of a decision of the Ministry of Forestry declining to grant export approval for unprocessed swamp kauri. A test case on the intended meaning of a “salvaged stump”.|
|Natural Gas Corporation of NZ Ltd v Horowhenua Energy Ltd  3 NZLR 493 (High Court)||Circumstances when a case will be shifted into Commercial List.|
|Southern Ocean Trawlers Ltd v Director-General of Agriculture and Fisheries  2 NZLR 53 (Court of Appeal).
Southern Ocean Trawlers Ltd v Director-General of Agriculture and Fisheries, High Court, 6 August 1992, Ellis J
|Defending a judicial review challenge to decision of D-G in favour of the second respondent, Sealord. The case continues to be a significant authority on the circumstances when a judicial review proceeding may be struck out.|
|Faris v The Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Committee  1 NZLR 60 (High Court).||Application to stay charges against a medical practitioner who was facing disciplinary action as a consequence of the Cartwright Report.|
|SmithKline Beecham (NZ) Ltd v Minister of Health  NZAR 357 (High Court).||Acting for SKB in a judicial review decision by the Minister to reduce the level of subsidy on an antibiotic drug.|