ESTATE HOMES LIMITED V WAITAKERE CITY COUNCIL CA CA210/04
The Court granted leave to appeal on the specific legal question whether the High Court erred in law in holding that the vesting requirement for Marinich Drive (except two metres) did not amount to a financial contribution under s 108(2)(a) RMA, thereby permitting full appellate consideration of that legal issue.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-3c7a53e0_a6b6_4c22_83eb_12fa555570f6.pdf
- Parties
- Appellant: Estate Homes Limited; Respondent: Waitakere City Council
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 15 November 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal to Court of Appeal / Leave to Appeal Granted on an Additional Question
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted on the specified additional question; costs reserved.
- Legal Topics
- Financial Contribution, Vesting of Land, Section 108(2)(a) RMA, Leave to Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Estate Homes Limited
Appellant
Waitakere City Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Court of Appeal / Leave to Appeal Granted on an Additional Question
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court erred in law by concluding that the requirement to vest the width of Marinich Drive (save as to two metres) was not a financial contribution under s 108(2)(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991
Ratio Decidendi
The Court granted leave to appeal on the specific legal question whether the High Court erred in law in holding that the vesting requirement for Marinich Drive (except two metres) did not amount to a financial contribution under s 108(2)(a) RMA, thereby permitting full appellate consideration of that legal issue.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted on the specified additional question; costs reserved.
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted on the additional question: Did the High Court err in law by concluding that the requirement to vest the width of Marinich Drive (save as to two metres of Marinich Drive) was not a financial contribution under s 108(2)(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991?
- Costs reserved.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
ESTATE HOMES LIMITED V WAITAKERE CITY COUNCIL CA CA210/04 15 November 2004IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA210/04BETWEEN ESTATE HOMES LIMITED Appellant AND WAITAKERE CITY COUNCIL Respondent Hearing: 15 November 2004 Court: William Young, Chambers, O'Regan JJ Counsel: P T Cavanagh QC and N D Wright for Appellant R B Enright for Respondent Judgment: 15 November 2004JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Leave to appeal is granted on the additional question: Did the High Court err in law by concluding that the requirement to vest the width of Marinich Drive (save as to two metres of Marinich Drive) was not a financial contribution under s 108(2)(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991? Costs are reserved. REASONS(Given by William Young J) [1] Leave to appeal to this Court was granted in the High Court on one question. The appellant sought leave from us to appeal in relation to other questions. In the course of argument, the appellant's position narrowed to the point where it sought leave to appeal on only one additional question.[2] As indicated to counsel at the hearing, we are satisfied that it is appropriate to grant leave to appeal on this additional question which is specified above. Leave to appeal is granted accordingly. Costs are reserved.Solicitors: Brookfields, Auckland for Appellant Kensington Swan, Auckland for Respondent