TOWNSCAPE AKORANGA LTD V AUCKLAND COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2012-404-3373

TOWNSCAPE AKORANGA LTD V AUCKLAND COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2012-404-3373

The Court refused to adjourn for further evidence because the Council failed to identify specific admissible extrinsic evidence that could materially affect the outcome; absent a clear showing of material admissible evidence, the substantive hearing will proceed as scheduled and any application for adjournment must specify the extrinsic evidence sought to be led and why it is admissible and material.

Citation
openlaw-8ceef7c5_bd05_4e74_9796_ecc78cf4f54e.pdf
Parties
First Applicant: Townscape Akoranga Ltd; Second Applicants: Townscape Securities Auckland Ltd and others; First Respondent / Applicant (in Related Proceedings): Auckland Council; Second Respondent / First Respondent (in Related Proceedings): The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Innovation, Business and Education; Second Respondent: Body Corporate 212138
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
19 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Declaratory Relief Under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 / Case Management Conference; Hearing Set to Commence 22 April 2013 (pre Trial / Urgent Case Management)
Outcome
Application for adjournment declined; substantive hearing to proceed at 10am on 22 April 2013; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, Judicial Review, Contribution Agreements, Qualifying Claimant and Dwellinghouse, Admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence, Duty of Care Following Supreme Court Authority
Administrative Law Public Law Contract Law Property Law Tort (duty of Care) Statutory Interpretation Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 Judicial Review +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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Townscape Akoranga Ltd

First Applicant

Townscape Securities Auckland Ltd and others

Second Applicants

Auckland Council

First Respondent / Applicant (in Related Proceedings)

The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Innovation, Business and Education

Second Respondent / First Respondent (in Related Proceedings)

Body Corporate 212138

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Declaratory Relief Under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 / Case Management Conference; Hearing Set to Commence 22 April 2013 (pre Trial / Urgent Case Management)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Chief Executive has the statutory decision-making power to determine eligibility for financial assistance under the Act
  2. 2 Whether student hostels qualify as 'dwellinghouse' for the purposes of the financial assistance scheme
  3. 3 Whether Auckland Council is an 'additional contributing party' obliged to make financial contributions under a contribution agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to adjourn for further evidence because the Council failed to identify specific admissible extrinsic evidence that could materially affect the outcome; absent a clear showing of material admissible evidence, the substantive hearing will proceed as scheduled and any application for adjournment must specify the extrinsic evidence sought to be led and why it is admissible and material.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment declined; substantive hearing to proceed at 10am on 22 April 2013; costs reserved

Orders

  • Proceedings will commence at 10am Monday 22 April 2013
  • If Auckland Council wishes to seek adjournment it must, when called, specify the nature of the extrinsic evidence it seeks to lead and explain its admissibility and materiality; the Court will hear any renewed application when the proceedings are called