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 (McCully) was one. The case is an unexpected by‐product of the substantive underlying case of Whangamata Marina Society Inc v Attorney‐General 2 (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. 1 [2006] NZCA 209. 2 HC WN CIV 2006, 485–789.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
