RANGITIRA DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2019] NZSC 121
Leave to appeal was granted because the reserve has been classified as a local purpose reserve under s16(1) of the Reserves Act 1977, which removed the mootness identified when leave was previously revoked, and the proposed appeal raises questions of general importance meriting consideration by this Court.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] NZSC 121
- Parties
- Applicant: Rangitira Developments Limited; Respondent: Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 5 November 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal (leave to Appeal) / Leave to Appeal — Granted
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Mootness, Reserve Classification, Access Arrangements, Reserves Act 1977 S16
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rangitira Developments Limited
Applicant
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (leave to Appeal) / Leave to Appeal — Granted
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
- 2 Whether the appeal was moot and whether subsequent classification of the reserve removed mootness
- 3 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the declarations made at [86] of the High Court judgment
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted because the reserve has been classified as a local purpose reserve under s16(1) of the Reserves Act 1977, which removed the mootness identified when leave was previously revoked, and the proposed appeal raises questions of general importance meriting consideration by this Court.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted
Orders
- Leave to appeal is granted (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc v Rangitira Developments Ltd [2018] NZCA 445, [2019] NZRMA 233).
- The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was in error in setting aside the declarations made at [86] of the High Court judgment (Rangitira Developments Ltd v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Ltd [2018] NZHC 146, (2018) 20 ELRNZ 312).
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RANGITIRA DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OFNEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2019] NZSC 121 [5 November 2019]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUISC 100/2019[2019] NZSC 121BETWEEN RANGITIRA DEVELOPMENTS LIMITEDApplicantAND ROYAL FOREST AND BIRDPROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEWZEALAND INCORPORATEDRespondentCourt: Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook and Ellen France JJCounsel: J E Hodder QC and M R G Christensen for ApplicantM C Smith and P D Anderson for RespondentJudgment: 5 November 2019JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA Leave to appeal is granted (Royal Forest and BirdProtection Society of New Zealand Inc v RangitiraDevelopments Ltd [2018] NZCA 445, [2019] NZRMA 233).B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal wasin error in setting aside the declarations made at [86] of thejudgment of the High Court (Rangitira DevelopmentsLtd v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Ltd [2018]NZHC 146, (2018) 20 ELRNZ 312).C There is no order as to costs.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] In a judgment delivered on 20 February 2019, the applicant (RangitiraDevelopments Ltd) was granted leave to appeal against the judgment of the Court ofAppeal in Rangitira Developments Ltd v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society ofNew Zealand Inc.1 The Court of Appeal judgment dealt with the approach to be takenby the Buller District Council (the Council) to Rangitira's application for an accessarrangement with the Council to enable the development of a mine on reserve landadministered by the Council.[2] Before the appeal was heard, information emerged about the status of thereserve. This information led to the Court re-visiting the decision to grant leave. And,after hearing from the parties, leave to appeal was revoked on the grounds that: first,the appeal was moot; second, it would be argued on a hypothetical basis; and, finally,the appeal would not resolve matters between the parties.2 Leave was reserved toRangitira to apply again for leave to appeal if the position changed. In particular, at[15] of the judgment revoking leave, the Court identified a number of scenariosconcerning the status of reserve which, if they occurred, would mean the appeal wasnot moot.[3] One of the scenarios, identified in [15(b)], was that the reserve in questionbecame classified as a local purpose reserve under s 16(1) of the Reserves Act 1977.The reserve has now been classified and Rangitira has applied again for leave on thebasis the proposed appeal is no longer moot.3 The respondent accepts the scenariocontemplated in [15(b)] of this Court's earlier judgment has come to pass.[4] The position is accordingly that the proposed appeal is no longer moot. TheCourt has earlier accepted the proposed appeal raises questions of general importance.Leave to appeal is therefore granted.[5] In the circumstances, costs on this application for leave lie where they fall andwe make no order as to costs.Solicitors:Natural Resources Law Ltd, Christchurch for ApplicantGilbert Walker, Auckland for Respondent1 Rangitira Developments Ltd v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc[2019] NZSC 6.2 Rangitira Developments Ltd v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc[2019] NZSC 81.3 No further evidence on this point is required.