Watching Over the Watchdog: Do We Need Judicial Review of the Ombudsman?

Event Description

Decisions of the Ombudsmen in their complaints jurisdiction in New Zealand are protected from judicial review by a privative clause (s 25 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975). Is there good reason for this, and should the clause be given effect? Remarkably, its effect has not yet been tested in court. Privative provisions generally are controversial, and courts have usually refused to give them effect. In New Zealand, however, it depends: clauses excluding judicial review entirely (full privative clauses) are not given effect, but clauses that merely restrict access to judicial review in favour of alternative adequate and effective avenues of recourse (partial privative clauses) are given effect, especially if courts can see a good reason for them. While the Ombudsmen’s privative clause on its face is a full privative clause, giving effect to it can arguably be justified by arguments analogous to those that apply to partial privative clauses.

Speaker

Hanna Wilberg’s research interests lie mainly in two areas: administrative law and the tort liability of public authorities. She also has an interest in public law more generally, particularly statutory interpretation, Bill of Rights, discrimination and Treaty of Waitangi issues. She has published in leading UK and Australian journals and edited collections in these areas. In her administrative law work, one of her main objectives is to help increase the availability of scholarly analysis of New Zealand law in this area, informed by engagement with relevant overseas jurisdictions. In her work on tort liability of public authorities, she addresses an audience across the main common law jurisdictions. 

She is currently writing a book on The Principles of Administrative Law in Aotearoa New Zealand, to be published by Hart in 2024. She is also the New Zealand Law Review’s contributor of scholarly reviews of recent developments in Administrative Law.