RANGITIRA DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v SAGE and WOODS [2020] NZHC 1503

RANGITIRA DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v SAGE and WOODS [2020] NZHC 1503

On the balance of probabilities the applicant failed to show Minister Sage was predeter-mined or disqualified by apparent bias; Ministers read and considered the Decision Report and materials, addressed and weighed the mandatory s61(2) factors including the Crown Minerals Act s1A purpose, and applied correct legal principles; officials' advice was not legally tainted and no breach of natural justice or improper purpose was established — therefore the decision to decline the access arrangement was lawful and the judicial review failed.

Citation
[2020] NZHC 1503
Parties
Applicant: Rangitira Developments Limited; First Respondent: Honourable Eugenie Sage; Second Respondent: Honourable Megan Woods
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
30 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 and Part 30 High Court Rules / High Court Judgment (hearing 9 10 December 2019; Judgment 30 June 2020)
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Predetermination, Apparent Bias, Improper Purpose, Natural Justice, Statutory Interpretation, Crown Minerals Act S61 Access Arrangements, Conservation Act Stewardship
Administrative Law Judicial Review Constitutional Law Environmental Law Conservation Law Resource/mineral Law Public Law Predetermination +6 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rangitira Developments Limited

Applicant

Honourable Eugenie Sage

First Respondent

Honourable Megan Woods

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 and Part 30 High Court Rules / High Court Judgment (hearing 9 10 December 2019; Judgment 30 June 2020)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Minister Sage was disqualified by predetermination or apparent bias
  2. 2 Whether the Ministers acted for an improper purpose (giving effect to 'no new mines' policy)
  3. 3 Whether Ministers properly applied the s1A purpose of the Crown Minerals Act and had regard to mandatory s61(2) factors

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the applicant failed to show Minister Sage was predeter-mined or disqualified by apparent bias; Ministers read and considered the Decision Report and materials, addressed and weighed the mandatory s61(2) factors including the Crown Minerals Act s1A purpose, and applied correct legal principles; officials' advice was not legally tainted and no breach of natural justice or improper purpose was established — therefore the decision to decline the access arrangement was lawful and the judicial review failed.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed
  • Respondents entitled to costs; if costs cannot be agreed, parties to file memoranda limited to a total of five pages