Abstract:
This paper examines whether New Zealand courts have renounced the ultra vires
doctrine as the central principle of judicial review. It examines this topic in terms of the
expanded meaning of jurisdiction, the relationship between error of law review and ultra
vires, the role that legislative intent plays, as well as the competing concepts of
parliamentary sovereignty and common law fundamental rights. This paper observes that
vires has evolved from the narrow concept of jurisdiction to general power conferred by
Parliament. It further argues that the New Zealand courts have treated error of law review
as a species of ultra vires, that there is a trend to interpret legislation more strictly without
reading in the courts’ extra requirements of good administration, that the courts employ
legislative intent in dealing with privative clauses, and that they avoid expressing a view
on the common law fundamental rights discussion. The conclusion is that the courts shave
not renounced the ultra vires doctrine
