CLARENCE JOHN FALOON V PALMERSTON NORTH AIRPORT LIMITED HC WN CIV-2012-485-2265
The application to consolidate was dismissed because the two proceedings did not raise the same question of law: the s 21(d) issue relates to property ownership, was not before the Environment Court and is not relevant to the RMA appeal, so consolidation under r 10.12 was inappropriate.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-d3946f88_c1e9_48a0_ac32_7b958dc08a62.pdf
- Parties
- Appellant: Clarence John Faloon; Respondent: Palmerston North Airport Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 14 May 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Resource Management Act Appeal / Application to Consolidate Under R 10.12; Appeal on Papers
- Outcome
- Application to consolidate dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Consolidation, Vexatious Litigation, Resource Consent, Water Diversion, Standing, Jurisdiction
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Clarence John Faloon
Appellant
Palmerston North Airport Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Resource Management Act Appeal / Application to Consolidate Under R 10.12; Appeal on Papers
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether two proceedings should be consolidated under High Court Rules r 10.12
- 2 Whether the Environment Court erred in striking out the RMA declaration as vexatious and disclosing no reasonable or relevant case
- 3 Whether s 21(d) Land Transfer Amendment Act 1963 issue is the same question of law and relevant to the RMA appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The application to consolidate was dismissed because the two proceedings did not raise the same question of law: the s 21(d) issue relates to property ownership, was not before the Environment Court and is not relevant to the RMA appeal, so consolidation under r 10.12 was inappropriate.
Court Disposition
Application to consolidate dismissed
Orders
- Application to consolidate dismissed.
- In accordance with r 11.5 the Registrar is directed to endorse this judgment with the delivery time of 12:00pm on 14 May 2013.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
FALOON V PALMERSTON NORTH AIRPORT LIMITED HC WN CIV-2012-485-2265 [14 May 2013]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYCIV-2012-485-2265[2013] NZHC 1084UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991BETWEEN CLARENCE JOHN FALOONAppellantAND PALMERSTON NORTH AIRPORTLIMITEDRespondentHearing: On papersCounsel: C J Faloon in personJ W Maassen for RespondentJudgment: 14 May 2013In accordance with r 11.5, I direct the Registrar to endorse this judgment with the delivery time of 12:00pm on the 14th May 2013.JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J[1] Mr Faloon has applied without notice to consolidate two proceedings under r 10.12 of the High Court Rules. The first case is an RMA proceeding currently before me: Faloon v Palmerston North Airport Limited, and the second case isFaloon v Commissioner of Inland Revenue a matter not before me and about which I have limited knowledge. Rule 10.12 grants the court a discretion to consolidate two proceedings if they share a common question of law.[2] Faloon v Palmerston North Airport Limited is an appeal against an Environment Court decision. Mr Faloon applies for a declaration that Palmerston North Airport Limited is diverting water without the required resource consent. TheEnvironment Court struck out the application because it was vexatious and it disclosed no reasonable or relevant case.[3] Briefly, the grounds advanced on appeal were:(a) the Environment Court should have heard from Mr Faloon before reaching its decision;(b) Mr Faloon had no ulterior motive beyond ensuring compliance with s 14 of the Resource Management Act; and(c) Mr Faloon's case was arguable.[4] Mr Faloon argues that Faloon v Commissioner of Inland Revenue raises aquestion of law regarding whether he is "deemed to stand possessed of the 1977-year Kawau Stream diversion by s 21(d) of the Land Transfer Amendment Act 1963." He argues that this matter is currently before me in Faloon v Palmerston North Airport Limited.[5] It is not. Mr Faloon did refer to s 21(d) in his submissions to me in Faloon v Palmerston North Airport Limited, but s 21(d) is about property ownership. Thisquestion was not within the Environment Court's jurisdiction, is not relevant to theappeal before me, and I will not address it on appeal.[6] It cannot therefore be said that the same question of law arises in both cases. The application is dismissed.___________________________Williams J