COLLINS v NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL [2013] NZHC 3039

COLLINS v NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL [2013] NZHC 3039

Council officers properly considered notification and reasonably concluded the 2009 amendments were tuning adjustments within the original objective of achieving a 20% Te Mata spill; there was no demonstrated prejudice and the claimed worse effects were speculative and emerged only from later, contested expert analysis, so the decision not to re-notify was not unlawful and judicial review fails.

Citation
[2013] NZHC 3039
Parties
First Applicant: Michael Collins; First Applicant: Roberta Collins; Second Applicant: Peter William Richards; Third Applicant: Neville Colin Thorne; Fourth Applicant: Mark Cameron Gurr; Fourth Applicant: Heather Angela Gurr; First Respondent: Northland Regional Council; Second Respondent: Whangarei District Council
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
15 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (rma Non Notification) / Judgment
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed; judgment for respondents
Legal Topics
Notification, Scope of Application, Procedural Fairness, Consent Modification, Illegality, Remedies
Resource Management Administrative Law Environmental Law Judicial Review Notification Scope of Application Procedural Fairness Consent Modification +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Collins

First Applicant

Roberta Collins

First Applicant

Peter William Richards

Second Applicant

Neville Colin Thorne

Third Applicant

Mark Cameron Gurr

Fourth Applicant

Heather Angela Gurr

Fourth Applicant

Northland Regional Council

First Respondent

Whangarei District Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (rma Non Notification) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amendments to the resource consent application were within the scope of the original application
  2. 2 Whether the consent authority was required to re-notify the amended application
  3. 3 Whether the decision not to re-notify was unlawful or irrational

Ratio Decidendi

Council officers properly considered notification and reasonably concluded the 2009 amendments were tuning adjustments within the original objective of achieving a 20% Te Mata spill; there was no demonstrated prejudice and the claimed worse effects were speculative and emerged only from later, contested expert analysis, so the decision not to re-notify was not unlawful and judicial review fails.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed; judgment for respondents

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed
  • Judgment entered for the respondents