ScholarLens Back to search
2006•Commonwealth Law BulletinRequires access

Can a Member of Parliament be ‘Genuinely and Properly’ Interested in Court Records?

Nilay B. Patel

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

If there was ever a case where the factual substratum could not have ever been foreseen, McCully v Whangamata Marina Society Inc & Anor 1 1 [2006] NZCA 209. (McCully) was one. The case is an unexpected by‐product of the substantive underlying case of Whangamata Marina Society Inc v Attorney‐General 2 2 HC WN CIV 2006, 485–789. (Whangamata) where the member of Parliament (MP) was not a party. The McCully case is unusual because: (1) it is, in law, a civil procedure case that matures into a significant constitutional law case; and (2) it is not the ruling alone, but the factual substratum particularly, that touches on the very heart of constitutional law. This article is limited to a cross‐analysis of the separation of powers, the sub judice rule, and ministerial decision‐making.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

If there was ever a case where the factual substratum could not have ever been foreseen, McCully v Whangamata Marina Society Inc & Anor 1 1 [2006] NZCA 209. (McCully) was one. The case is an unexpected by‐product of the substantive underlying case of Whangamata Marina Society Inc v Attorney‐General 2 2 HC WN CIV 2006, 485–789. (Whangamata) where the member of Parliament (MP) was not a party. The McCully case is unusual because: (1) it is, in law, a civil procedure case that matures into a significant constitutional law case; and (2) it is not the ruling alone, but the factual substratum particularly, that touches on the very heart of constitutional law. This article is limited to a cross‐analysis of the separation of powers, the sub judice rule, and ministerial decision‐making.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

If there was ever a case where the factual substratum could not have ever been foreseen, McCully v Whangamata Marina Society Inc & Anor 1 1 [2006] NZCA 209. (McCully) was one. The case is an unexpected by‐product of the substantive underlying case of Whangamata Marina Society Inc v Attorney‐General 2 2 HC WN CIV 2006, 485–789. (Whangamata) where the member of Parliament (MP) was not a party. The McCully case is unusual because: (1) it is, in law, a civil procedure case that matures into a significant constitutional law case; and (2) it is not the ruling alone, but the factual substratum particularly, that touches on the very heart of constitutional law. This article is limited to a cross‐analysis of the separation of powers, the sub judice rule, and ministerial decision‐making.

Key concepts: Parliament, Law, Political science, Constitutional court, Constitutional law, Common law, Product (mathematics), Civil procedure

Related papers

Related paper 1Related paper 2Related paper 3
Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Can a Member of Parliament be ‘Genuinely and Properly’ Interested in Court Records? — Research Paper | ScholarLens