SUTTON v CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 313

SUTTON v CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 313

The Council unlawfully failed to notify and misclassified Infinity's application because it relied on demonstrably incorrect allocation data and outdated records; applicants were adversely affected to more than minor extent and the substantive grant was made without proper application of the s104D gateway test — accordingly the notification decision and the substantive consent are set aside and remitted for reconsideration.

Citation
(2015) 18 ELRNZ 774
Parties
Applicant: Robert William Sutton; Applicant: Meghan Elizabeth Sutton; Applicant: Lone Star Farms Limited; First Respondent: Canterbury Regional Council; Second Respondent: Infinity Investment Group Limited; Second Respondent: Robert Hay Robertson
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
27 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (resource Consent) / High Court Judgment (final)
Outcome
Application for judicial review granted; Council's notification and substantive decisions set aside; Infinity's resource consent application remitted to Canterbury Regional Council for reconsideration
Legal Topics
Notification of Resource Consents, Resource Consent Classification, Non Complying Activity (s104 D), Water Allocation and Over Allocation, Judicial Review of Public Decision, Section 95 A/95 B Notification Tests, Section 104 and S104 D Gateway
Resource Management Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Notification of Resource Consents Resource Consent Classification Non Complying Activity (s104 D) Water Allocation and Over Allocation Judicial Review of Public Decision +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert William Sutton

Applicant

Meghan Elizabeth Sutton

Applicant

Lone Star Farms Limited

Applicant

Canterbury Regional Council

First Respondent

Infinity Investment Group Limited

Second Respondent

Robert Hay Robertson

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (resource Consent) / High Court Judgment (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants were adversely affected to more than minor extent for s95B/95E purposes
  2. 2 Whether Council failed to consider actual and potential effects on existing consent holders when deciding notification (s95A/95B)
  3. 3 Whether Council misclassified the application as discretionary rather than non-complying under the WCWARP and RMA

Ratio Decidendi

The Council unlawfully failed to notify and misclassified Infinity's application because it relied on demonstrably incorrect allocation data and outdated records; applicants were adversely affected to more than minor extent and the substantive grant was made without proper application of the s104D gateway test — accordingly the notification decision and the substantive consent are set aside and remitted for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review granted; Council's notification and substantive decisions set aside; Infinity's resource consent application remitted to Canterbury Regional Council for reconsideration

Orders

  • Judicial review granted
  • Canterbury Regional Council's decision that notification was not required is set aside