MCELROY AND ORS V AUCKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD SC 11/2010
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the contested issue was a factual determination—correctly reached by the courts below—that the land was required for the aerodrome/airport public work under s 40 PWA, and the case did not raise a question of general or public importance warranting Supreme Court review.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 11/2010
- Parties
- Applicant: Michael Shane McElroy; John Warwick Lambie; Hugh Drummond Lambie (as trustees of the Craigie Trust); Respondent: Auckland International Airport Limited
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 9 June 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal From Compulsory Acquisition Decision Under the Public Works Act 1981 / Supreme Court Decision on Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Public Works Act 1981 S 40, Compulsory Acquisition, Aerodrome/airport Designation, Offer Back Obligation
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Michael Shane McElroy; John Warwick Lambie; Hugh Drummond Lambie (as trustees of the Craigie Trust)
Applicant
Auckland International Airport Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From Compulsory Acquisition Decision Under the Public Works Act 1981 / Supreme Court Decision on Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants' land was "required" for the public work of an aerodrome within s 40 Public Works Act 1981
- 2 Whether the Court of Appeal misinterpreted the meaning of "required"
- 3 Whether the question raised was of general or public importance
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the contested issue was a factual determination—correctly reached by the courts below—that the land was required for the aerodrome/airport public work under s 40 PWA, and the case did not raise a question of general or public importance warranting Supreme Court review.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- Application for leave dismissed
- Costs awarded to respondent: $2,500
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
MCELROY AND ORS V AUCKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD SC 11/2010 9 June 2010IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 11/2010 [2010] NZSC 62BETWEEN MICHAEL SHANE McELROY, JOHN WARWICK LAMBIE AND HUGH DRUMMOND LAMBIE AS TRUSTEES OF THE CRAIGIE TRUST Applicants AND AUCKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED Respondent Court: Elias CJ and McGrath J Counsel: C R Carruthers QC and B H Dickey for Applicants A R Galbraith QC and S J Katz for Respondent Judgment: 9 June 2010JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent. REASONS[1] This application for leave to appeal concerns the compulsory acquisition of the applicants' land adjacent to Auckland Airport for the public works purpose of an "aerodrome". The applicants seek leave on the ground that the land is not "required" for the public work of an aerodrome under s 40 of the Public Works Act 1981. [2] The courts below held that the applicants' land was required for the public works purpose of an airport, the modern day equivalent of an aerodrome.[3] The Supreme Court in Hood v Attorney-General1 observed that questions regarding the use of land for public works are specific to the circumstances of the particular land and its history. [4] That is the position in the present case. Notwithstanding the applicants' contention that the Court of Appeal 2 misinterpreted the word "required" in s 40 of the Public Works Act, its complaint is not with interpretation but with the judgment on the facts reached concurrently in the High Court 3 and Court of Appeal that the land is required for the public work for which it was taken (an "aerodrome"). There was therefore no obligation to offer the land back (and the questions of whether the exception to the requirement to offer back and the date of valuation are not reached). No question of general or public importance or general commercial significance arises in the application of the Act to the facts. The fact that the land is currently either unused or is used for ancillary commercial purposes of the airport does not affect the fact that it is held for airport purposes, for the reasons fully explained by the courts below (and turning on the nature of an airport). [5] The application is accordingly dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland for Applicants Russell McVeagh, Auckland for Respondent1 Hood v Attorney-General [2005] NZSC 53, [2007] NZRMA 28 at [4].2 McElroy v Auckland International Airport Ltd [2009] NZCA 621.3 McElroy v Auckland International Airport Ltd [2008] 3 NZLR 262.