AUCKLAND COUNCIL v MAWHINNEY [2014] NZHC 906

AUCKLAND COUNCIL v MAWHINNEY [2014] NZHC 906

The recall application was dismissed because s 314 RMA is not relevant to establishing a right to monetary damages for economic loss arising from a council's failure to process consents and would not have affected the earlier outcome; omission to cite s 314 did not meet the Horowhenua ground for recall and recall cannot be used to re-argue matters that could have been raised earlier.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 906
Parties
Judgment Creditor / Respondent: Auckland Council; Judgment Debtor / Applicant: Peter William Mawhinney
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
7 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Originating Application to Set Aside a Bankruptcy Notice / Application to Recall Judgment After Judgment Delivered 27 February 2014
Outcome
Application to recall judgment dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Orders, Damages, Set Off and Counter Claims, Recall of Judgment, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation
Resource Management Act 1991 Bankruptcy Administrative Law Civil Procedure Enforcement Orders Damages Set Off and Counter Claims Recall of Judgment +2 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Auckland Council

Judgment Creditor / Respondent

Peter William Mawhinney

Judgment Debtor / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Originating Application to Set Aside a Bankruptcy Notice / Application to Recall Judgment After Judgment Delivered 27 February 2014

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 314 RMA provides a means to obtain monetary compensation for economic loss caused by a territorial authority's failure to process resource consent applications
  2. 2 Whether failure to draw s 314 to the Court's attention at the earlier hearing justifies recall under Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) ground two
  3. 3 Whether damages can be pursued as part of a judicial review under r 30.3 HCR

Ratio Decidendi

The recall application was dismissed because s 314 RMA is not relevant to establishing a right to monetary damages for economic loss arising from a council's failure to process consents and would not have affected the earlier outcome; omission to cite s 314 did not meet the Horowhenua ground for recall and recall cannot be used to re-argue matters that could have been raised earlier.

Court Disposition

Application to recall judgment dismissed

Orders

  • Application for recall dismissed
  • Parties to confer on costs and if they cannot agree file memoranda not exceeding five pages on each side within 10 working days of this judgment