CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED V NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL CA CA78/06
Materials consisting of used and unwanted paper and cardboard that Carter Holt Harvey acquires by contract from their owners are not "waste" for the purposes of Part 31 LGA 1974 and s145 LGA 2002; consequently bylaws requiring licensing of collection and transportation of those materials are ultra vires and invalid...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-7c84350d_77f1_46d6_b713_f2e36efd812d.pdf
- Parties
- Appellant: Carter Holt Harvey Limited; First Respondent: North Shore City Council; Second Respondent: Waitakere City Council; Third Respondent: Rodney District Council
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 26 September 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Supplementary Judgment (declarations)
- Outcome
- Declarations made that the specified bylaws are ultra vires and invalid insofar as they require licensing of collection and transportation of used and unwanted paper and cardboard acquired by contract from their owners
- Legal Topics
- Bylaw Validity, Definition of Waste, Ultra Vires, Licensing of Waste Collection and Transport, Abandonment of Property
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Carter Holt Harvey Limited
Appellant
North Shore City Council
First Respondent
Waitakere City Council
Second Respondent
Rodney District Council
Third Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supplementary Judgment (declarations)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether used and unwanted paper and cardboard acquired by contract from their owners constitute "waste" for the purposes of Part 31 of the Local Government Act 1974 and s145 of the Local Government Act 2002
- 2 Whether bylaws requiring licensing of the collection and transportation of such materials are intra vires or ultra vires
- 3 Whether an owner must abandon all rights for materials to be treated as waste for the purposes of the bylaws and statutes
Ratio Decidendi
Materials consisting of used and unwanted paper and cardboard that Carter Holt Harvey acquires by contract from their owners are not "waste" for the purposes of Part 31 LGA 1974 and s145 LGA 2002; consequently bylaws requiring licensing of collection and transportation of those materials are ultra vires and invalid insofar as they apply to such contractually acquired materials.
Court Disposition
Declarations made that the specified bylaws are ultra vires and invalid insofar as they require licensing of collection and transportation of used and unwanted paper and cardboard acquired by contract from their owners
Orders
- Used and unwanted paper and cardboard materials which Carter Holt Harvey Limited acquires by contract from its owner are not "waste" for the purposes of Part 31 of the Local Government Act 1974 and s145 of the Local Government Act 2002.
- North Shore City Council Bylaw 2000: Part 4 is ultra vires and invalid insofar as it requires the licensing of the collection and transportation of used and unwanted paper and cardboard materials which Carter Holt Harvey Limited acquires by contract from the former owners of that paper.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED V NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL CA CA78/06 26 September 2007IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA78/06 [2007] NZCA 420BETWEEN CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED Appellant AND NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL First Respondent AND WAITAKERE CITY COUNCIL Second Respondent AND RODNEY DISTRICT COUNCIL Third Respondent Hearing: 14 June 2007 Court: Glazebrook, Wilson and Heath JJ Counsel: B R Latimour and R J Hollyman for Appellant D A Kirkpatrick and R Keenan for Respondents Judgment: 26 September 2007 at 9.30am Supplementary Judgment: 30 November 2007 at 10amSUPPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Declarations made.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Wilson J) [1] In our Judgment delivered on 26 September this year, we directed counsel to confer as to the form of declarations required to give effect to that Judgment.[2] Counsel have now filed a Joint Memorandum in which they advise that the parties are in agreement that certain declarations should be made. [3] With one qualification, to which we refer at [5] below, we agree that declarations should be made accordingly. [4] We therefore make declarations that: (a) Used and unwanted paper and cardboard materials which Carter Holt Harvey Limited acquires by contract from its owner are not "waste" for the purposes of Part 31 of the Local Government Act 1974 and s 145 of the Local Government Act 2002. (b) Bylaw (North Shore City Council Bylaw 2000: Part 4) made by North Shore City Council is ultra vires and invalid insofar as it requires the licensing of the collection and transportation of used and unwanted paper and cardboard materials which Carter Holt Harvey Limited acquires by contract from the former owners of that paper. (c) Bylaw (Rodney District Council Waste Bylaw 2005) made by Rodney District Council is ultra vires and invalid insofar as it requires the licensing of the collection and transportation of used and unwanted paper and cardboard materials which Carter Holt Harvey Limited acquires by contract from the former owners of that paper. (d) Bylaw (Waitakere City Council Waste Bylaw 2005) made by Waitakere City Council is ultra vires and invalid insofar as it requires the licensing of the collection and transportation of used and unwanted paper and cardboard materials which Carter Holt Harvey Limited acquires by contract from the former owners of that paper. [5] The qualification to which we referred is that the proposed first declaration included the additional words "because the owner has not abandoned all right to ownership and all interest in the material". We have deleted these words because inour view they purport to express the reason for the declaration and should therefore not be part of it. [6] The reasons why these declarations are made are set out in our previous Judgment. They should therefore be read in the light of that Judgment.Solicitors: Bell Gully (Auckland) for Appellant Kensington Swan (Auckland) for Respondents