Ian Carter
Ian CarterBarrister
  • Judicial review

  • Public, administrative, constitutional law

  • Immigration

  • Refugees

  • Human Rights

  • International

  • Intelligence and Security

  • Privacy

  • Inquiries and investigations

  • Commercial regulatory

What clients and professional colleagues say about Ian Carter

“You possess a formidable (and, in my view, unparalleled) knowledge of immigration law and practice”

“a considered, respectful, firm and persuasive advocate”

“You always made yourself available to provide support at times of crisis”

“a superb advocate”

“did a superb job in the judicial review”

“extensive litigation experience and ability to bring strategic and tactical intelligence to bear”

“high respect for your tactical and strategic approach to litigation in particular”

“a very talented man and I certainly hold him in high regard”

“respected for your knowledge and for the quality of your advice and representation”

“thorough and tenacious”

More Reviews

What the courts say about Ian’s work

“I wish to acknowledge the assistance I have gained from Mr Carter’s comprehensive submissions.”

“I must express my appreciation to Mr Carter for responding in the manner in which he has.”

“…those arguments go well beyond what was put to us by Mr Carter in his very responsible submissions in a difficult case.”

“…there is force in Mr Carter’s submissions that these matters are now beyond challenge.”

“I accept Mr Carter’s submission that no reviewable error of law has arisen.”

“In the result, we agree with Mr Carter that, as matters stand, the appeal is not arguable and is devoid of merit.”

“Mr Carter submitted: Nothing about these appeals warrants a departure … We agree.”

“This emerged from the careful and comprehensive submissions of Mr Carter … to whom I’m indebted for much of the following summary of the relevant principles.”

“I record my thanks to …Mr Carter for attending to this matter as a matter of extreme urgency.”

“Mr Carter has very helpfully appeared on a Pickwick basis to assist in providing some further background and indicating the respondent’s position …”

“Mr Carter’s submission that there was here no error of law … must plainly be upheld.”

IAN CARTER

Ian Carter is an established and leading public law specialist of more than 30 years’ experience. He is an experienced trial and appellate advocate and has acted as lead counsel in the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and numerous tribunals in litigation that is the subject of hundreds of reported and unreported judgments.

These cover subject areas as diverse as a ruling against jury trial for historic, institutional abuse claims – McInroe v Leeks [2000] 2 NZLR 721, (2000) 14 PRNZ 164 (CA); sales tax – Cantex Distributors Ltd v Collector of Customs (1984) 6 NZTC 61, 971; authority of company directors to bind a company – Cromwell Corporation Ltd v Sofrana Immobilier (NZ) Ltd (1991) 5 PRNZ 180 (CA); availability of a customs tariff concession for a tug boat – CentrePort Ltd v Attorney-General HC Wellington CIV-2008-485-2084, 29 April 2010; injunctions to restrain a future breach of the criminal law – Pickering v Attorney General [2001] 2 NZLR 324 (CA); the test case holding that summary judgment was not available for Bill of Rights compensation claims – Link Technology 2000 Ltd v Attorney-General (Customs) (2003) 7 HRNZ 166, (2003) 1 NZCC 61, 273; airport landing charges – Air Nelson Limited v Minister of Transport [2008] NZCA 26, [2008] NZAR 139; civil aviation safety – Smith v Attorney-General [2009] 1 NZLR 535.

He appeared as senior counsel in most of the leading New Zealand cases in the higher courts in the immigration, refugee and human rights protection areas and is recognised for his specialist expertise in these areas. A representative sample includes Fang v Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2017] NZCA 190, [2017] 3 NZLR 316; K v Attorney-General [2016] NZCA 416, [2017] 2 NZLR 167, [2016] NZAR 1643; Minhas v Immigration Officer [2016] NZCA 435, reported as Singh (Kulbir) v An Immigration Officer [2016] NZAR 1419; Zhang v Associate Minister of Immigration [2016] NZCA 361, [2016] NZAR 1222; Singh v Chief Executive Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2015] NZCA 592, [2016] NZAR 93; Ye v Minister of Immigration [2009] NZSC 76, [2010] 1 NZLR 104; Attorney-General v Tamil X [2010] NZSC 107, [2011] 1 NZLR 721; Rajan v Minister of Immigration [2004] NZAR 615.

His primary areas of practice include judicial review, public, administrative and constitutional law, immigration, refugees, human rights, international, intelligence and security, privacy, border security, transport, commercial regulatory and government liability.  He has worked in private practice at leading litigation practices in Auckland and Wellington and has acted for government parties for many years as a Senior Crown Counsel with Crown Law and as General Counsel and senior leadership team member within the intelligence community.

Advisory and policy work which Ian has undertaken extend over a broad range of subject matter including:

  • Fisheries
  • Validity of cost recovery levies
  • Scampi fishery compensation claims
  • Elimination, minimisation or damage control of legal exposure
  • Alternative dispute resolution – negotiation, mediation, arbitration
  • Crown Proceedings
  • Mass arrivals/people trafficking
  • Immigration
  • Intelligence and Security
  • Countering terrorist fighters
  • National security information in court and other proceedings
  • Health and Safety
  • Maritime

Ian is recognised for his extensive litigation experience in the public law area and his tenacious, comprehensive and thorough preparation and advocacy for the best interests of his clients.

Recent and Notable Cases

Reported cases are court and tribunal decisions that are published by commercial legal publishers and which are selected on the basis that they are necessary or of value to persons engaged in the administration or practice of law in New Zealand. They are generally those of legal significance which decide novel points in New Zealand law, or which restate existing principles in a way that may be cited in the future, or which apply existing law in novel circumstances.
Ian has appeared as counsel (in virtually all as lead counsel) in nearly 100 cases which generated decisions that have been reported. They are:

  • Li v Chief Executive, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2018] NZHC 1171, [2018] NZAR 1134. (23 May 2018)
  • Fang v Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2017] NZCA 190, [2017] 3 NZLR 316. (19 May 2017)
  • Fang v Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2017] NZCA 28, (2017) 24 PRNZ 74. (6 March 2017)
  • K v Attorney-General [2016] NZCA 416, [2017] 2 NZLR 167, [2016] NZAR 1643. (CA 21 September 2016)
  • Minhas v Immigration Officer [2016] NZCA 435. Reported as Singh (Kulbir) v An Immigration Officer [2016] NZAR 1419. (CA 12 September 2016)
  • Zhang v Associate Minister of Immigration [2016] NZCA 361, [2016] NZAR 1222. (CA 28 July 2016)
  • Singh v Chief Executive Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2015] NZCA 592, [2016] NZAR 93. (CA 8 December 2015)
  • Heads v Attorney-General [2013] NZHRRT 12, (2015) 10 HRNZ 203. (HRRT 17 April 2015)
  • Chief Executive Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Liu [2014] NZCA 37, [2014] 2 NZLR 662. (CA, 26 February 2014)
  • Minister of Immigration v Zhang [2013] NZCA 487, [2014] NZAR 88. (CA 16 October 2013)
  • Attorney-General v Idea Services Ltd (2011) 21 PRNZ 94 (HC Mallon J 16 December 2011).
  • Q v Attorney-General [2011] NZAR 625 (HC Courtney J 8 July 2011).
  • B v Chief Executive of the Department of Labour [2011] 3 NZLR 60 (HC Simon France J, 30 June 2011).
More

Fang v Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment [2017] NZCA 190

Minhas Singh v Immigration Officer [2016] NZCA 435 (reported as Singh (Kulbir) v An Immigration Officer [2016] NZAR 1419 (CA))

Singh (Kulbir) v Chief Executive, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2016] NZSC 39

Zhang v Associate Minister of Immigration [2016] NZCA 361, [2016] NZAR 1222

Singh v Chief Executive, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2015] NZCA 592; [2016] NZAR 93

Parmanadan v Minister of Immigration [2010] NZCA 136, [2010] NZAR 424 (22 April 2010)

In the above cases Ian successfully advocated on behalf of his client the difficult public law position that courts are naturally reluctant to accept, namely, that there are minimal natural justice and procedural protections in the particular statutory context.

K v Attorney-General [2016] NZCA 416, [2017] 2 NZLR 167, [2016] NZAR 1643 – refugee confidentiality, content of natural justice and witness protection
Vilceanu v Attorney-General HC Auckland CIV-2010-404-4358, 11 May 2011 – unnecessary to revisit relatively recent tribunal decision, section 27 NZBoRA does not add to common law natural justice.

Ye v Minister of Immigration [2009] NZSC 76, [2010] 1 NZLR 104 (20 July 2009) – tested the application of art 3 the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the extent of natural justice protections when exercising a discretion to make a humanitarian exception in immigration decisions.

Huang v Minister of Immigration [2009] NZSC 77, [2010] 1 NZLR 135, (20 July 2009) – a rare instance of the court being persuaded to accept a discretion as to remedy argument in an application for judicial review, ultimately succeeding at the highest level of the New Zealand judicial hierarchy. Ian achieved the same unusual outcome in the High Court in other cases including Tasman & Sounds Recreational Fisheries Association Inc v Ministry of Fisheries HC Nelson CP25/97, 28 April 1999 and Air Nelson Ltd v Minister of Transport HC Wellington CIV-2006-485-894, 11 December 2006.

More

Fang v Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment [2017] NZCA 190

Minhas Singh v Immigration Officer [2016] NZCA 435 (reported as Singh (Kulbir) v An Immigration Officer [2016] NZAR 1419 (CA))

Singh (Kulbir) v Chief Executive, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2016] NZSC 39

Zhang v Associate Minister of Immigration [2016] NZCA 361, [2016] NZAR 1222

Singh v Chief Executive, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2015] NZCA 592; [2016] NZAR 93

Parmanadan v Minister of Immigration [2010] NZCA 136, [2010] NZAR 424 (22 April 2010)

In the above cases Ian successfully advocated on behalf of his client the principles governing when and on what basis the courts will intervene in the final stages of the deportation process.

• K v Attorney-General [2016] NZCA 416, [2017] 2 NZLR 167, [2016] NZAR 1643

• Ye v Minister of Immigration [2009] NZSC 76, [2010] 1 NZLR 104 (20 July 2009)

• Huang v Minister of Immigration [2009] NZSC 77, [2010] 1 NZLR 135, (20 July 2009)

• Minister of Immigration v Al Hosan [2008] NZCA 462, [2009] NZAR 259 (4 November 2008)

• Huang v Minister of Immigration [2008] NZCA 377, [2009] 2 NZLR 700 (19 September 2008)

• Ye v Minister of Immigration [2008] NZCA 29, [2009] 2 NZLR 596 (7 August 2008)

• Ding v Minister of Immigration (2006) 25 FRNZ 568

• Taito v Chief Executive of the Department of Labour [2006] NZAR 420, (2006) 8 HRNZ 71 (CA)

• Zaoui v Attorney-General [2005] 1 NZLR 577 (CA)

• Rajan v Minister of Immigration [2004] NZAR 615 (CA)

• Wolf v Minister of Immigration [2004] NZAR 414; (2004) 7 HRNZ 469

• Yusuf v Chief Executive of the Department of Labour [2003] NZAR 693

• Jiao v Refugee Status Appeals Authority [2003] NZAR 647 (CA)

• MA v Attorney-General [2010] NZSC 33 (31 March 2010)

• A v Attorney-General [2009] NZCA 490 (20 October 2009)

• Q v Attorney-General [2011] NZAR 625 (8 July 2011, HC)

• Attorney-General v Tamil X [2010] NZSC 107, [2011] 1 NZLR 721 (27 August 2010)

• X v Refugee Status Appeals Authority [2009] NZCA 488, [2010] 2 NZLR 73 (20 October 2009, alt cit Tamil X v Refugee Status Appeals Authority)

• Attorney-General v X [2008] NZSC 48, [2008] 2 NZLR 579 (20 June 2008)

• X v Refugee Status Appeals Authority [2006] NZAR 533

• K v Refugee Status Appeals Authority [2005] NZAR 441

• T v Refugee Status Appeals Authority [2004] NZAR 552

Toia v Prison Manager, Auckland Prison [2014] NZHC 867 (30 April 2014)

Link Technology 2000 Ltd v Attorney-General (Customs) (2003) 7 HRNZ 166, (2003) 1 NZCC 61, 273

Heads v Attorney-General [2013] NZHRRT 12 (17 April 2015), (2015) 10 HRNZ 203

Attorney-General v Idea Services Limited (2011) 21 PRNZ 94 (16 December 2011, HC)

Attorney-General v Idea Services Limited HC Wellington CIV-2011-485-1562, (19 September 2011)

Vilceanu v Attorney-General HC Auckland CIV-2010-404-4358, 11 May 2011 – unnecessary to revisit relatively recent tribunal decision which addressed humanitarian factors.

Vilceanu v Minister of Immigration [2008] NZCA 486 (18 November 2008).

Minister of Immigration v Vilceanu HC Wellington CIV-2007-485-377 & 835, 11 December 2007

Attorney-General v X, Attorney-General v Z [2007] NZCA 388 (5 September 2007)

K v Attorney-General [2016] NZCA 416, [2017] 2 NZLR 167, [2016] NZAR 1643

Q v Attorney-General [2011] NZAR 625 (8 July 2011, HC)

Attorney-General v Tamil X [2010] NZSC 107, [2011] 1 NZLR 721 (27 August 2010)

Ye v Minister of Immigration [2009] NZSC 76, [2010] 1 NZLR 104 (20 July 2009)

Huang v Minister of Immigration [2009] NZSC 77, [2010] 1 NZLR 135, (20 July 2009)

Minhas Singh v Immigration Officer [2016] NZCA 435 (reported as Singh (Kulbir) v An Immigration Officer [2016] NZAR 1419 (CA))

Parmanadan v Minister of Immigration [2010] NZCA 136, [2010] NZAR 424 (22 April 2010)

X v Refugee Status Appeals Authority [2009] NZCA 488, [2010] 2 NZLR 73 (20 October 2009, alt cit Tamil X v Refugee Status Appeals Authority).

Minister of Immigration v Al Hosan [2008] NZCA 462, [2009] NZAR 259 (4 November 2008).

Huang v Minister of Immigration [2008] NZCA 377, [2009] 2 NZLR 700 (19 September 2008)

Ye v Minister of Immigration [2008] NZCA 29, [2009] 2 NZLR 596 (7 August 2008)

Attorney-General v X [2008] NZSC 48, [2008] 2 NZLR 579 (20 June 2008)

Ding v Minister of Immigration (2006) 25 FRNZ 568; X v Refugee Status Appeals Authority [2006] NZAR 533

Taito v Chief Executive of the Department of Labour [2006] NZAR 420, (2006) 8 HRNZ 71 (CA)

K v Refugee Status Appeals Authority [2005] NZAR 441

Zaoui v Attorney-General [2005] 1 NZLR 577 (CA)

Rajan v Minister of Immigration [2004] NZAR 615 (CA)

T v Refugee Status Appeals Authority [2004] NZAR 552

Wolf v Minister of Immigration [2004] NZAR 414; (2004) 7 HRNZ 469

Yusuf v Chief Executive of the Department of Labour [2003] NZAR 693.

Jiao v Refugee Status Appeals Authority [2003] NZAR 647 (CA)

Fang v Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment [2017] NZCA 190

Singh (Kulbir) v Chief Executive, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2016] NZSC 39

MA v Attorney-General [2010] NZSC 33 (31 March 2010)

A v Attorney-General [2009] NZCA 490 (20 October 2009)

Attorney-General v X; Attorney-General v Z [2007] NZCA 388 (5 September 2007)

Z v Attorney-General HC Auckland CIV-2007-404-330, 30 March 2007

Garate v Chief Executive of the Department of Labour HC Auckland CIV-2004-404-1440 & CIV-2004-485-102, 30 November 2004

• Heads v Attorney-General [2013] NZHRRT 12 (17 April 2015), (2015) 10 HRNZ 203

• Attorney-General v Idea Services Limited (2011) 21 PRNZ 94 (16 December 2011, HC)

• Attorney-General v Idea Services Limited HC Wellington CIV-2011-485-1562, (19 September 2011)

• Zaoui v Attorney-General [2005] 1 NZLR 577 (CA) (detention).

• Pickering v Attorney General [2001] 2 NZLR 324 (CA) – in a civil contempt case, whether witnesses should be compelled to file affidavit evidence in advance of hearing or should be allowed to give oral evidence at the hearing.

• Attorney-General v Pickering HC Hamilton CP24/98, 11 April 2002 – orders varying terms of civil injunction restraining future breaches of criminal law.

• Attorney-General v Pickering HC Hamilton CP24/98, 21 September 2001 – imprisonment for civil contempt.

• Attorney-General v Pickering HC Hamilton CP24/98, 19 September 2001 – grant of writ of arrest for contempt by breaching civil injunction restraining future breach of criminal law.

• Pickering v Attorney General (2001) 15 PRNZ 369 (CA) – jurisdiction to appeal.

• Pickering v Attorney General [2001] 2 NZLR 324 (CA) – in a civil contempt case, whether witnesses should be compelled to file affidavit evidence in advance of hearing or should be allowed to give oral evidence at the hearing.

• Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry v Pickering DC Hamilton CRN00190234445/446 & CRN019018648/649, 19 September 2002 – sentencing under Animal Remedies Act 1967).

• Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry v Pickering DC Hamilton CRN00190234445/446 & CRN019018648/649, 14 June 2002 – prosecution and conviction under Animal Remedies Act 1967.

• Attorney-General v Pickering HC Hamilton CP24/98, 21 September 2001 – imprisonment for civil contempt; Attorney-General v Pickering HC Hamilton CP24/98, 11 April 2002 – orders varying terms of civil injunction restraining future breaches of criminal law.

• Attorney-General v Pickering HC Hamilton CP24/98, 19 September 2001 – grant of writ of arrest for contempt by breaching civil injunction restraining future breach of criminal law.

• Attorney-General v Pickering HC Hamilton CP24/98, 3 May 2001 – orders compelling evidence from persons refusing to give affidavits.

• Pickering v Attorney-General CA2/99, 15 November 1999 – abandonment and dismissal of application for special leave to appeal out of time.

• Colby Corporation Ltd v Animal Remedies Board HC Wellington AP135/96, 25 August 1999 – de novo appeal with lay assessors sitting with a High Court Judge.

• Pickering v Attorney-General CA2/99, 22 July 1999 – extension of time to complete procedural steps.

• Koru Aquaculture Ltd v Director General of Agriculture & Fisheries HC Auckland M16/93, 19 January 1993 – costs judgment in Crown’s favour following applicant’s withdrawal of application for judicial review subsequent to Crown obtaining interim, then permanent, mandatory injunction and other orders in December 1992 to stop marine farming of a prohibited species in Auckland.

• Attorney-General v X [2008] NZSC 48, [2008] 2 NZLR 579 (20 June 2008)

• X v Refugee Status Appeals Authority [2006] NZAR 533

• Zaoui v Attorney-General [2005] 1 NZLR 577 (CA) (detention)

• Smith v Attorney-General [2009] 1 NZLR 535 (12 November 2008)

• Air Nelson Limited v Minister of Transport [2008] NZCA 26, [2008] NZAR 139 (22 February 2008)

• Air Nelson Ltd v Minister of Transport HC Wellington CIV-2006-485-894, 11 December 2006

• Ministry of Fisheries v Dowey [1998] 3 NZLR 5 (CA) – criminal appeal.

• New Zealand Fishing Industry Assn Inc v Minister of Fisheries [1997] NZAR 316 (CA) – extension of interim orders pending appeal.

• New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council Inc v New Zealand Federation of Commercial Fishermen Inc [1996] 2 NZLR 230, also reported as New

• Zealand Federation of Commercial Fishermen (Inc) v Ministry of Fisheries (1996) 9 PRNZ 176 – application for joinder by voluntary organisation with costs to be paid by state.

• Goodship v Minister of Fisheries CA236/02, 2 October 2003

• Re Waikato Regional Council HC Hamilton M141/01, 22 October 2002 – declaratory judgment/resource management.

• Goodship v Minister of Fisheries HC Wellington CP185/97, 2 May 2002 & 9 October 2002

• Coromandel Scallop Fishermen’s Association Inc v Minister of Fisheries HC Wellington CP182/99, 13 September 1999

• Tasman & Sounds Recreational Fisheries Association Inc v Ministry of Fisheries HC Nelson CP25/97, 28 April 1999 – resource management coastal permit/marine farming permit, adequacy of factual material forming basis of decision, taking into account irrelevant considerations, adequacy of consultation, discretion as to remedy.

• McGlone v Ministry of Fisheries HC Wellington CP62/98, 16 December 1998

• Raukura Moana Fisheries Limited v Ministry of Fisheries DC Wellington NP1751/97, 3 November 1998

• New Zealand Federation of Commercial Fishermen Inc v Minister of Fisheries HC Wellington CP237/95 & CP294/96, 3 November 1998 -costs – “SNA1”.

• Raukura Moana Fisheries Limited v Ministry of Fisheries DC Wellington NP1751/97, 31 October 1998

• Manukau v Ministry of Fisheries HC Auckland M984/97, 29 July 1998

• New Zealand Federation of Commercial Fishermen Inc v Minister of Fisheries CA82/97, 22 July 1997 – substantive judgment – “SNA1”.

• New Zealand Federation of Commercial Fishermen Inc v Minister of Fisheries CA82/97, 8 May 1997 – interim orders pending appeal – “SNA1”.

• Leigh Fishermens Association Inc v Ministry of Fisheries HC Wellington CP266/95, 11 June 1997 – substantive judgment.

• New Zealand Federation of Commercial Fishermen Inc v Minister of Fisheries (“SNA1”) HC Wellington CP237/95 & CP294/96, 24 April 1997 – substantive judgment following 3-week hearing March/April 1997 – “SNA1”.

More

Manukau v Ministry of Fisheries HC Auckland M984/97, 29 July 1998.

New Zealand Federation of Commercial Fishermen Inc v Minister of Fisheries CA82/97, 22 July 1997 – substantive judgment – “SNA1”.

Toia v Prison Manager, Auckland Prison [2014] NZHC 867 (30 April 2014)

Speed v Chief Executive of the Department of Labour High Court, Wellington, 18/7/2011, CIV-2011-485-1369, Williams J

Speed v Chief Executive of the Department of Labour High Court, Wellington, 14/7/2011, CIV-2011-485-1369, Williams J

Wasim v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2011] NZAR 142 (High Court, Wellington, 21/12/2010, CIV-2010-485-2542, Miller J)

Ana v Minister of Immigration High Court Wellington, 20/12/2010, CIV-2010-485-2541, Miller J

Zaoui v Attorney-General [2005] 1 NZLR 577 (CA).

McInroe v Leeks [2000] 2 NZLR 721 (CA), (2000) 14 PRNZ 164 (CA)

McInroe v Leeks HC Wellington CP116/99 & CP117/99, 27 September 1999

McInroe v Leeks HC Wellington CP116/99 & CP117/99, 4 August 1999

Bell v Director General of Health [1997] DCR 145

McInroe v Leeks HC Wellington CP12/94, 2 August 1996

Seminars and Presentations

  • Immigration Law Update – Judicial Review and Appeals Legalwise, November 2018
  • Immigration, Refugee and Protection – Appeals and Judicial Review: To the High Court and Beyond Auckland District Law Society, September 2018
  • Immigration Law Intensive Legalwise, March 2018
  • An Update on Immigration Cases Immigration Law Conference, Lexis Nexis, 2009
  • Presented several in-house seminars to Crown Law and other central government departments on civil procedure in the context of litigation against the Crown, appellate advocacy, immigration/refugee law, human rights, interim orders/injunctions, fisheries litigation.
Debra Angus
Andrew Beck
Ian Carter
Pam Davidson
Toby Gee
Felix Geiringer
Barbara Hunt
Tanya Kennedy
James Mahuta-Coyle
Paul Michalik
David Milliken
John Morrison
Kim Murray
Gaeline Phipps
Terry Sissons
All Members