Mills v Far North District Council [2018] NZHC 2451

Mills v Far North District Council [2018] NZHC 2451

The recall application was dismissed because the claimed omission (failure to consider broader public interest) was not established: the judgment had in fact considered the relevant public interest and prejudice issues, the applicants were effectively recasting prior arguments, and the narrow 'very special reason'...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 2451
Parties
First Applicant: Gary Edward Mills; Second Applicant: Paul Wayne Fieldman; First Respondent: Far North District Council; Second Respondents: Bogdan Vitalevich Gan and Olesya Nikolaevna Gan
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
18 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 and Resource Management Act 1991 / Application for Recall of Judgment
Outcome
application for recall dismissed
Legal Topics
Recall of Judgment, Relief in Judicial Review, Prejudice, Delay, Resource Consent, Heritage Precinct
Administrative Law Judicial Review Resource Management Law Procedural Law Recall of Judgment Relief in Judicial Review Prejudice Delay +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Edward Mills

First Applicant

Paul Wayne Fieldman

Second Applicant

Far North District Council

First Respondent

Bogdan Vitalevich Gan and Olesya Nikolaevna Gan

Second Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 and Resource Management Act 1991 / Application for Recall of Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment omitted consideration of broader public interest and prejudice to the heritage precinct such that recall is required
  2. 2 Whether the applicants raised the public interest issue sufficiently at the original hearing
  3. 3 Whether the threshold for recall under the Wild CJ test (Horowhenua County v Nash) is met

Ratio Decidendi

The recall application was dismissed because the claimed omission (failure to consider broader public interest) was not established: the judgment had in fact considered the relevant public interest and prejudice issues, the applicants were effectively recasting prior arguments, and the narrow 'very special reason' threshold for recall (per Horowhenua County v Nash and Court of Appeal guidance) was not satisfied.

Court Disposition

application for recall dismissed

Orders

  • Application for recall dismissed.
  • Any party seeking costs (including in relation to the substantive hearing and the recall application) may file a memorandum, no more than seven pages in length, within 10 working days of the date of this judgment.