26-05-2025
Greyhounds Starts Judicial Review Proceedings
Greyhound Racing New Zealand (GRNZ) has today applied, through its Counsel to the High Court, for a Judicial Review of the Government's decision to ban greyhound racing from 31 July 2026.
The statement of claim made to the Court says the decision broke fundamental rules of law, being inadequately informed, prepared and consulted on. There were only a few short steps from the Minister for Racing seeking a report in June 2024 on banning the sport, to the Cabinet deciding to do so in December 2024.
The Cabinet paper produced by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) focused on animal welfare but was selective in its use of reports from the Racing Integrity Board (RIB) and included no information from the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC). For example, an RIB November 2024 report stated that GRNZ met welfare standards, often better than other animal sports or greyhound racing worldwide, but this information was left out of the DIA report and Cabinet paper.
GRNZ's application says there was a duty, promise and expectation to consult with GRNZ on the decision which never happened, despite a history of constructive engagement on animal welfare.
GRNZ CEO Edward Rennell said 'the organisation had decided on a judicial review to expose the Government's cavalier attitude to policymaking adversely impacting the livelihoods of thousands.
'This was a Cabinet paper from public officials who had made up their minds, for a Prime Minister who had made up his mind and stated it publicly.
'The Government took its decision too lightly and too quickly, without due care and due diligence. It was a rushed and inadequate Cabinet paper.
'This is an injustice to greyhound breeders, owners, trainers and all other industry participants, as well as a dereliction of duty to New Zealanders.
'Decisions that impact the lives and livelihoods of people must be extremely well articulated and evidenced. This decision was not, highlighting an emerging pattern of short-cutting in policymaking. New Zealand deserves better.' Edward Rennell said.
Case explainer
The GRNZ statement of claim under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016:
The essence of the GRNZ case is that the way the Cabinet decision to ban Greyhound racing was reached and the decision itself broke many fundamental rules of administrative law.
It is rare to challenge a Cabinet decision, but the decision-making process was so inadequate and erroneous that it warrants judicial intervention.
It clarifies that the Cabinet decision was a 'reviewable decision' under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016.
The first cause of action was the failure to consult.
GRNZ says consultation is a legal duty that arose from being promised to Greyhound Racing, and because of the hugely significant implications to the detriment of many hundreds of hardworking New Zealanders. The Department of Internal Affairs officials said no decision would be made without Greyhound Racing being consulted – but it did not happen.
The second cause of action is legitimate expectation.
A legitimate expectation about a certain process can be established by what has been said or done by a decision maker. GRNZ says DIA's course of conduct since 2021 created a legitimate expectation that the industry would be able to make submissions on any proposed ban.
The third point is that the process broke all the rules about procedural fairness.
Decisionmakers must act reasonably to ensure the process undertaken is fair and not a foregone conclusion. That has not happened here.
The fourth and fifth causes of action deal with the failure to make relevant considerations.
Either the Minister was unaware of the development of the Cabinet paper and the background circumstances, or the Minister knew exactly what was going on and was instrumental in its sign-off and presentation.
The fourth cause of action says that if the Minister was unaware, then the officials failed by not bringing to the Minister's attention certain key relevant considerations
The fifth cause of action proceeds on the basis that the Minister did know what was going on.
Interim Relief.
GRNZ is applying for 'interim relief' – a Court order to stop the Crown working on the ban (via the Ministerial Advisory Committee) while the judicial review is undertaken. No further steps to give effect to the ban should be taken unless and until the Court has had an opportunity of scrutinising the claim.
