Mills v Far North District Council [2018] NZHC 2082

Mills v Far North District Council [2018] NZHC 2082

Court found the council failed to take into account specific District Plan objectives and policies in chapter 12.5 (rr 12.5.3.4, 12.5.4.1, 12.5.4.11) and did not have adequate and reliable information to properly decide notification and consent (reliance on applicant evidence and Heritage NZ advice founded on incomplete elevations). Those reviewable errors were established. Despite that, the Court exercised its discretion to decline relief because of delay, the applicants' late challenge after near-completion, and significant prejudice to respondents; consequently relief was refused though errors were identified.

Citation
(2018) 20 ELRNZ 453
Parties
First Applicant: Gary Edward Mills; Second Applicant: Paul Wayne Fieldman; First Respondent: Far North District Council; Second Respondent: Bogdan Vitalevich Gan; Second Respondent: Olesya Nikolaevna Gan
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
15 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Second and third causes of action (failure to consider specified district plan provisions and inadequate information) made out; other causes dismissed; judicial review relief declined
Legal Topics
Notification, Resource Consent, Part 2 RMA S6(f), Adequacy of Information, Judicial Review, Special Circumstances S95 a
Resource Management Administrative Law Planning Law Heritage Law Notification Resource Consent Part 2 RMA S6(f) Adequacy of Information +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Edward Mills

First Applicant

Paul Wayne Fieldman

Second Applicant

Far North District Council

First Respondent

Bogdan Vitalevich Gan

Second Respondent

Olesya Nikolaevna Gan

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether council failed to recognise and provide for s6(f) matters of national importance
  2. 2 Whether council failed to take into account relevant District Plan objectives and policies (chapter 12.5)
  3. 3 Whether the information before the council was adequate to decide notification and to grant consent

Ratio Decidendi

Court found the council failed to take into account specific District Plan objectives and policies in chapter 12.5 (rr 12.5.3.4, 12.5.4.1, 12.5.4.11) and did not have adequate and reliable information to properly decide notification and consent (reliance on applicant evidence and Heritage NZ advice founded on incomplete elevations). Those reviewable errors were established. Despite that, the Court exercised its discretion to decline relief because of delay, the applicants' late challenge after near-completion, and significant prejudice to respondents; consequently relief was refused though errors were identified.

Court Disposition

Second and third causes of action (failure to consider specified district plan provisions and inadequate information) made out; other causes dismissed; judicial review relief declined

Orders

  • Declined to grant declaratory relief or orders setting aside the council's notification and consent decisions despite finding reviewable error
  • Findings recorded that rr 12.5.3.4, 12.5.4.1 and 12.5.4.11 were not taken into account and that the information before the council was insufficient and not reliably founded