HAWKEʼS BAY REGIONAL INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED v ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2017] NZSC 106

HAWKEʼS BAY REGIONAL INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED v ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2017] NZSC 106

The Supreme Court held that s 18(7) revocation of specially protected status must be justified by reference to the intrinsic conservation values of the land to be revoked and may not be principally driven by a comparative or net‑benefit assessment to facilitate an exchange under s 16A; decision‑makers must take into account statutory planning instruments adopted under s 17A; an exchange under s 16A is a disposition that can engage marginal strip reservation under s 24 absent a valid exemption.

Citation
[2017] 1 NZLR 1041
Parties
Appellant / Second Respondent: Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Limited; First Respondent: Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated; Second Respondent / Appellant: Minister of Conservation
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
6 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Revocation of Protected Status, Land Exchange, Statutory Interpretation, Marginal Strips, Conservation Management Strategy, Delegation of Authority
Conservation Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Public Law Property Law Revocation of Protected Status Land Exchange Statutory Interpretation +3 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Limited

Appellant / Second Respondent

Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated

First Respondent

Minister of Conservation

Second Respondent / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 18(7) revocation of conservation park status may be exercised to facilitate an exchange under s 16A
  2. 2 Whether revocation can be based on a comparative/net‑benefit assessment of the exchange rather than the intrinsic conservation values of the land subject to revocation
  3. 3 Whether statutory planning instruments adopted under s 17A (the Conservation General Policy and local Conservation Management Strategy) bind and must be taken into account by the Minister or delegate in making revocation/exchange decisions

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that s 18(7) revocation of specially protected status must be justified by reference to the intrinsic conservation values of the land to be revoked and may not be principally driven by a comparative or net‑benefit assessment to facilitate an exchange under s 16A; decision‑makers must take into account statutory planning instruments adopted under s 17A; an exchange under s 16A is a disposition that can engage marginal strip reservation under s 24 absent a valid exemption.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Costs reserved; parties may file written submissions if seeking costs within one month of date of judgment