MARCHE LIMITED & ANOR v AUCKLAND COUNCIL & ANOR [2016] NZHC 145

MARCHE LIMITED & ANOR v AUCKLAND COUNCIL & ANOR [2016] NZHC 145

The notification decision was quashed because the Commissioners provided inadequate reasons, displayed a real risk of error of law in treating District Plan rule 4.3.2.6 as overriding s95A(4) and relied on a templated decision without demonstrating consideration of relevant factors; the procedural defect required quashing of the notification and consequent substantive decision and remitting the application for fresh consideration with proper reasons.

Citation
[2016] NZAR 542
Parties
First Plaintiff: MARCHE LIMITED; Second Plaintiff: JOCELYN ARMSTRONG; First Defendant: AUCKLAND COUNCIL; Second Respondent: GARY DEENEY
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
12 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Resource Consent Decisions Under the Resource Management Act 1991 / High Court Judgment Quashing Notification and Substantive Decisions and Remitting Application for Reconsideration
Outcome
Notification decision and substantive decision quashed; application for resource consent referred back to Council for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Notification of Resource Consent, Judicial Review, Reason Giving, Procedural Fairness, Delegation and Decision Making
Resource Management Administrative Law Environmental Law Notification of Resource Consent Judicial Review Reason Giving Procedural Fairness Delegation and Decision Making

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MARCHE LIMITED

First Plaintiff

JOCELYN ARMSTRONG

Second Plaintiff

AUCKLAND COUNCIL

First Defendant

GARY DEENEY

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Resource Consent Decisions Under the Resource Management Act 1991 / High Court Judgment Quashing Notification and Substantive Decisions and Remitting Application for Reconsideration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether commissioners correctly applied s95A(3) and s95A(4) RMA regarding public notification
  2. 2 Whether reasons given satisfied statutory and common law requirements to provide adequate reasons (s113(4) and case law)
  3. 3 Whether commissioners made an error of law by treating District Plan rule 4.3.2.6 as outweighing or 'trumping' s95A(4)

Ratio Decidendi

The notification decision was quashed because the Commissioners provided inadequate reasons, displayed a real risk of error of law in treating District Plan rule 4.3.2.6 as overriding s95A(4) and relied on a templated decision without demonstrating consideration of relevant factors; the procedural defect required quashing of the notification and consequent substantive decision and remitting the application for fresh consideration with proper reasons.

Court Disposition

Notification decision and substantive decision quashed; application for resource consent referred back to Council for reconsideration.

Orders

  • Quash the notification decision dated 28 May 2015
  • Quash the substantive decision dated 7 August 2015