THE FRIENDS OF PAKIRI BEACH V AUCKLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL AND ORS CA CA487/2008

THE FRIENDS OF PAKIRI BEACH V AUCKLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL AND ORS CA CA487/2008 26 September 2008IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA487/2008 [2008] NZCA 395BETWEEN THE FRIENDS OF PAKIRI BEACH Appellant AND AUCKLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL First Respondent AND SEA-TOW LIMITED Second Respondent AND MCCALLUM BROS LIMITED Third Respondent Court: Robertson, Arnold and Ellen France JJ Counsel: N R W Davidson QC and J A Carnie for Appellants J K MacRae for Second and Third Respondents Judgment: 26 September 2008 at 2.30 pm (on the papers)JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Appeal allowed, by consent. REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Arnold J) [1] In a decision dated 18 July 2008 ([2008] NZCA 250) this Court extended the time for the appellants to apply for special leave to appeal against Winkelmann J's decision in The Friends of Pakiri Beach v Auckland Regional Council HC AK CIV2006-404-3546 2 March 2007. There Winkelmann J struck out a number of prospective grounds of appeal that the appellants wished to raise in an appeal against a decision of the Environment Court brought under s 299 of the Resource Management Act 1991, on the basis that they were not questions of law. [2] Having granted the extension of time, this Court granted the appellants special leave to appeal on the question whether the High Court erred in holding that the grounds of appeal struck out were not arguably questions of law arising from the Environment Court's decision. The Court set out the somewhat unfortunate procedural history of this matter, and invited the respondents to consider consenting to the appeal being allowed, on the basis that they would be entitled to argue that the grounds of appeal are not questions of law at the substantive appeal against the Environment Court's decision in the High Court (at [19]). [3] The parties have now filed a joint memorandum in which the respondents confirm that they have agreed to adopt the course which the Court proposed. Accordingly, they consent to the appeal in CA286/2008 being allowed, on the basis that they will be entitled to raise in the substantive appeal the argument that the grounds of appeal do not raise arguable questions of law. The parties have agreed that no order as to costs is required. [4] On this basis, we allow the appeal, by consent.Solicitors: Clendons, Auckland for Appellants DLA Phillips Fox, Auckland for Second and Third Respondents