SAWMILLS WORKERS AGAINST POISONS INC AND ANOR V WHAKATANE DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ORS HC ROT CIV 2006-463-32

SAWMILLS WORKERS AGAINST POISONS INC AND ANOR V WHAKATANE DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ORS HC ROT CIV 2006-463-32

The Court found there was a seriously arguable case that the water discharge application ought to have been notified because the available scientific material (including the ESR draft) raised public health and environmental questions not clearly addressed by the council's documentation; discretionary considerations (potential public health impact) outweighed economic prejudice, so interim relief was necessary to preserve applicants' position by prohibiting further discharges under the permit pending full hearing; interim relief was declined in relation to the land use consent because that challenge was primarily merits based and subject to the Environment Court process.

Citation
openlaw-c8293d8d_fe7b_4c34_8bcb_28708d9c493b.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: SAWMILLS WORKERS AGAINST POISONS INC; Second Plaintiff: HOHEPA JOSEPH HARAWIRA; First Defendant: WHAKATANE DISTRICT COUNCIL; Second Defendant: BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL; Third Defendants: WILLIS BOND & CO (AUCKLAND) LTD AND WHAKATANE SUPER CENTRE LTD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
27 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (resource Management Act 1991; Local Government Act 2002) / Interim Relief Application Under S 8 Judicature Amendment Act 1972 Pending Substantive Judicial Review
Outcome
Interim relief granted in part: prohibition on further discharges under the water discharge permit pending further order; interim relief declined in respect of the land use consent.
Legal Topics
Interim Relief, Non Notification of Resource Consent, Water Discharge Permit, Site Contamination, Judicial Review, Section 93 RMA, Section 8 Judicature Amendment Act 1972
Administrative Law Resource Management Environmental Law Local Government Law Public Health Interim Relief Non Notification of Resource Consent Water Discharge Permit +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAWMILLS WORKERS AGAINST POISONS INC

First Plaintiff

HOHEPA JOSEPH HARAWIRA

Second Plaintiff

WHAKATANE DISTRICT COUNCIL

First Defendant

BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Second Defendant

WILLIS BOND & CO (AUCKLAND) LTD AND WHAKATANE SUPER CENTRE LTD

Third Defendants

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (resource Management Act 1991; Local Government Act 2002) / Interim Relief Application Under S 8 Judicature Amendment Act 1972 Pending Substantive Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for a water discharge permit ought to have been publicly notified under s 93 RMA
  2. 2 Whether discretionary factors justify interim prohibition of discharges pending judicial review
  3. 3 Whether interim relief should restrain activity authorised by the land use consent

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found there was a seriously arguable case that the water discharge application ought to have been notified because the available scientific material (including the ESR draft) raised public health and environmental questions not clearly addressed by the council's documentation; discretionary considerations (potential public health impact) outweighed economic prejudice, so interim relief was necessary to preserve applicants' position by prohibiting further discharges under the permit pending full hearing; interim relief was declined in relation to the land use consent because that challenge was primarily merits based and subject to the Environment Court process.

Court Disposition

Interim relief granted in part: prohibition on further discharges under the water discharge permit pending further order; interim relief declined in respect of the land use consent.

Orders

  • Prohibition on third defendants taking any further steps to discharge water from the site in accordance with the water discharge permit dated 23 December 2005 pending further order of the Court
  • Leave reserved to apply to discharge or vary the prohibition order