MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION v DROMGOOL [2019] NZCA 508
The Court granted leave to appeal and framed the approved question to resolve whether the High Court erred in law, focusing on the interpretation of s186 RMA and whether the s24(7) PWA adequacy inquiry relates to the requiring authority, the Minister, or both; leave was granted to settle these legal questions.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] NZCA 508
- Parties
- Appellant: Minister for Land Information; First Respondent: Shane Dromgool; First Respondent: Dorothy Dromgool; Second Respondent: Alan Darvall Poulton; Second Respondent: Jennifer Poulton; Third Respondent: Newman Farms Limited
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 22 October 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal / Leave Granted; on Papers
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal granted
- Legal Topics
- Ministerial Obligations Under S186 RMA, Adequacy of Consideration of Alternatives Under S24(7) PWA, Judicial Review, Scope of Inquiry by Requiring Authority Versus Minister
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Minister for Land Information
Appellant
Shane Dromgool
First Respondent
Dorothy Dromgool
First Respondent
Alan Darvall Poulton
Second Respondent
Jennifer Poulton
Second Respondent
Newman Farms Limited
Third Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal / Leave Granted; on Papers
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court erred in allowing the appeal and setting aside the Environment Court's report
- 2 What are the role and obligations of the Minister under s186 of the Resource Management Act 1991
- 3 Whether the inquiry into adequacy of consideration of alternatives under s24(7) of the Public Works Act 1981 is directed at the requiring authority, the Minister, or both
Ratio Decidendi
The Court granted leave to appeal and framed the approved question to resolve whether the High Court erred in law, focusing on the interpretation of s186 RMA and whether the s24(7) PWA adequacy inquiry relates to the requiring authority, the Minister, or both; leave was granted to settle these legal questions.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal granted
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted
- Approved question: whether the High Court erred in law in allowing the appeal and setting aside the Environment Court's report, specifically addressing the role and obligations of the Minister under s186 RMA and whether the s24(7) PWA adequacy inquiry is directed at the requiring authority, the Minister, or both
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION v DROMGOOL [2019] NZCA 508 [22 October 2019]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA364/2019[2019] NZCA 508BETWEEN MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATIONAppellantAND SHANE DROMGOOL ANDDOROTHY DROMGOOLFirst RespondentsAND ALAN DARVALL POULTON ANDJENNIFER POULTONSecond RespondentsAND NEWMAN FARMS LIMITEDThird RespondentsCourt: Gilbert and Goddard JJCounsel: A N Isac QC, E M Jamieson and M C McCarthy for AppellantD M Salmon and A W McDonald for RespondentsJudgment:(On the papers)22 October 2019 at 2 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to appeal is granted.B The approved question is whether the High Court erred in law in allowingthe appeal1 and setting aside the Environment Court's report.2C Counsel should focus their submissions on:(a) the role and obligations of the Minister under s 186 of the ResourceManagement Act 1991; and1 Dromgool v Minister for Land Information [2019] NZHC 1563.2 Dromgool v Minister for Land Information [2018] NZEnvC 108.(b) whether the inquiry into the adequacy of consideration of alternativescontemplated by s 24(7) of the Public Works Act 1981 is an inquiry intothe adequacy of consideration of alternatives by the requiring authority,by the Minister, or by both.____________________________________________________________________Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for AppellantLeeSalmonLong, Auckland for Respondents