SPACKMAN V QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ANOR HC DUN CIV 2006-412-000843

SPACKMAN V QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ANOR HC DUN CIV 2006-412-000843

The Court followed Faavae and exercised its inherent jurisdiction to grant an interim stay because perfection or sale of Lots 3 and 4 could fix boundaries and thereby prejudice the applicant's appellate remedy concerning Lot 2; accordingly the Court restrained perfection of the subdivision consents for Lots 3 and 4...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-76a651ac_836a_462c_b3c3_5b263e22c129.pdf
Parties
Applicant: Michael Spackman; First Respondent: Queenstown Lakes District Council; Second Respondent: Raylene Jelley; Second Respondent: William Jelley; Second Respondent: Lyall William Jelley
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
20 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Interim Stay Application / Interim Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
Interim stay granted preventing perfection of subdivision consents for Lots 3 and 4 until further order; timetable for affidavits and submissions set; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Subdivision Consent, Inherent Jurisdiction, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Property Law Stay of Execution Subdivision Consent Inherent Jurisdiction Judicial Review

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Spackman

Applicant

Queenstown Lakes District Council

First Respondent

Raylene Jelley

Second Respondent

William Jelley

Second Respondent

Lyall William Jelley

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Interim Stay Application / Interim Stay Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to grant an interim stay via its inherent jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether subdivision consents for Lots 3 and 4 should be stayed pending appeal to prevent prejudice
  3. 3 Whether perfection or sale of Lots 3 and 4 would fix boundaries and defeat effective relief concerning Lot 2

Ratio Decidendi

The Court followed Faavae and exercised its inherent jurisdiction to grant an interim stay because perfection or sale of Lots 3 and 4 could fix boundaries and thereby prejudice the applicant's appellate remedy concerning Lot 2; accordingly the Court restrained perfection of the subdivision consents for Lots 3 and 4 until further hearing on 5 September and further determination.

Court Disposition

Interim stay granted preventing perfection of subdivision consents for Lots 3 and 4 until further order; timetable for affidavits and submissions set; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Prevent the first respondent and the second respondents perfecting the Council subdivision consent to Lots 3 and 4 until further examination of the issues on Wednesday 5 September 2007 and until further determination of the Court after hearing on that date.
  • Applicant to file affidavits and submissions in support of a stay beyond 5 September by 27 July 2007.