posted on 2021-11-14, 01:19authored byEmanuel, Asher Gabriel
<p>The use of comparator groups has to date been central to establishing a breach of s 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The New Zealand courts’ approach to the formulation of comparator groups admits a lack of a clear methodology. This paper argues that, in the absence of a framework guiding the formulation of the comparator, the methodology permits arbitrary and inconsistent decision-making. The flexibility of the approach risks premature exclusion of claims in reliance on intuitive rather than analytical reasoning, limiting the transformative potential of nondiscrimination provisions. Of particular concern is the involvement of matters of justification at the comparator stage. The High Court judgment in B v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development is emblematic of these concerns. Recent developments at the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Health v Atkinson and Child Poverty Action Group v Attorney-General have provided some guidance, but have not gone far enough. This paper recommends that the courts depart from requiring a comparator for claims under s 19. Where comparators are necessary, it is proposed that the courts defer to the claimant’s choice of comparator, and decouple the identification of differential treatment from questions of causation.</p>
History
Copyright Date
2013-01-01
Date of Award
2013-01-01
Publisher
Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington
Rights License
Author Retains Copyright
Degree Grantor
Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington
Degree Name
LL.B. (Honours)
ANZSRC Type Of Activity code
970118 Expanding Knowledge in Law and Legal Studies