New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Affected persons

Legal area

Court

17 Nov 2021

WALLACE v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 3095

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3095
Court

High Court

Council erred as a matter of law by assessing effects against an environment that improperly included development requiring consent and by failing to specifically consider the effects of building intensity (number of dwellings and associated activities) on neighbourhood character and residential amenity under H4.8.1(2) and H4.8.2; those legal errors rendered the non-notification and substantive decisions unlawful and the Decisions and consents were quashed and remitted for reconsideration.
5 Jul 2021

NZ SOUTHERN RIVERS SOCIETY INCORPORATED v GORE DISTRICT COUNCIL [2021] NZCA 296 [5 July 2021]

Citation

(2021) 22 ELRNZ 880
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the Commissioner had adequate and reliable information in the application (including frequency, duration, scale and proposed management measures) and in the written approvals from relevant agencies to reasonably conclude adverse effects on anglers would be infrequent, short-term and no more than minor; the absence of the angler emails and the subjective views of anglers did not render the non-notification decision unlawful under s95A–95E RMA.
21 Jun 2021

FROST v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 1474

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1474
Court

High Court

Court found reviewable error: the Council misapplied the statutory test for affected persons in respect of vegetation removal (used 'not more than minor' instead of 'less than minor') and wrongly treated a registered consent notice as equivalent to a site standard when cancelling it; as a result the cancellation decision (notification and substantive) was quashed and the consent notice reinstated, but the Court declined to quash the land use consent in the exercise of its discretion given prejudice and factual circumstances.
9 Dec 2019

KNOWLES v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 3227

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3227
Court

High Court

QLDC's non‑notification and substantive s104 decisions were invalid because the council failed to give adequate weight to the LDSR rezoning in the PDP when it was very likely to remain operative (CSF's appeal had low prospect of success); that failure to consider a relevant circumstance was a material reviewable error warranting quashing and remittal. Other alleged errors (including reference to a permitted 8m building on 3 York Street) were either not reviewable or not material to the outcome.
8 Oct 2018

ENNOR v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 2598

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2598
Court

High Court

Although the council's documentation was not exemplary, the council had adequate information, assessed the salient objectives and policies of the Legacy Plan and the PAUP, properly considered bulk, dominance, shading and privacy effects on the neighbour, and any numerical differences in coverage were immaterial or offset by the pool being a permitted activity; no legal error or procedural unfairness of sufficient gravity was shown to invalidate the non-notified grant, so the judicial review application is dismissed.
5 Jul 2017

DUGGAN AND ROGERS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL & ANOR [2017] NZHC 1540

Citation

(2017) 20 ELRNZ 31
Court

High Court

The Council did not act ultra vires: the application remained for land use consent and s88A protected its activity status; the decision‑maker properly had regard to the PAUP Decisions Version and relevant WRHA Act provisions, considered relevant evidence and assessments, applied the correct legal tests for notification and the non‑complying gateway, and no reviewable error or unreasonableness was established, therefore the plaintiffs' judicial review challenge fails.
29 Sept 2011

TE RUNANGA-A-IWI O NGATI KAHU V CARRINGTON FARMS LTD HC WHA CIV 2010-488-348

Citation

openlaw-ddad2e57_08e4_4848_8e04_224a900fe7e1.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court declared that under clause 4 of the 5 March 2001 settlement (as amended) Carrington agreed not to seek to expand accommodation onto land that included the site of the 2008 land use consent; the Council's decision not to notify RC2080553 was unreasonable and legally flawed because it failed to consider special circumstances (including the settlement, cultural significance, and the likelihood the dwelling consent could not be implemented without subdivision) and therefore RC2080553 is quashed and must be reconsidered on a notified basis together with the subdivision application.
15 Dec 2010

FAIR INVESTMENTS LIMITED V PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR HC PMN CIV 2010-454-653

Citation

openlaw-0ce65db8_ffb5_4b20_bc66_0de271ef5f49.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the Council lawfully and rationally considered the relevant matters (traffic, parking, visual amenity, special circumstances and affected persons), correctly concluded the adverse effects were less than minor, and therefore properly declined public or limited notification and lawfully granted consent; the judicial review application was dismissed.
18 Dec 2007

AUCKLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL V RODNEY DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-003464

Citation

openlaw-79111e5d_e54d_4834_b2e5_483b5e36eb9b.pdf
Court

High Court

Although ARC proved errors in RDC's decision, the Court exercised its discretion and declined to award costs to Parihoa because the litigation raised legitimate public law issues, ARC acted in the public interest and succeeded on significant legal points, and balancing discretionary factors (including the public interest, the nature of the errors, and Parihoa's prejudice) justified leaving costs where they fell.
21 Nov 2007

ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED V KAPITI COAST DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2007-485-635

Citation

openlaw-e4556506_8a24_4396_8b6b_0d98fedd8450.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Council lawfully declined public notification: the Council had sufficient information and properly addressed site effects such that concluding the effects on the subdivision site were no more than minor was open to it; s94A(c) requires disregarding effects on persons who gave written approval (here DOC), so off‑site effects on the Reserve were excluded from the s94 assessment; Forest and Bird lacked the necessary site‑specific interest to be a person who 'may be adversely affected'; and no special circumstances under s94C arose that required notification.