New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Compulsory acquisition

Legal area

Court

14 Dec 2023

YMCA NORTH INCORPORATED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 3697

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3697
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was declined because the issues raised did not present novel questions of law or general principle requiring a second appeal; the High Court found that in the absence of market evidence supporting the claimant's asserted reduction in value the costs to cure methodology adopted on the evidence was appropriate in the circumstances and there was no irreconcilable legal tension requiring appellate determination.
10 Oct 2023

PASCOE v MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION [2023] NZHC 2844

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2844
Court

High Court

The delegation instrument validly delegated the s 18(1)(a) Public Works Act power because the instrument, read as a whole, identified s 28 of the State Sector Act in its preamble and no statutory form requirement mandated repeating the empowering provision in the operative clause; the omission was immaterial to meaning and effect, and even if it were a plain drafting error it could be corrected by interpretation; accordingly the delegation and authorised sub-delegations were lawful and the judicial review application was dismissed.
21 Jun 2023

COOPER v HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 1392

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1392
Court

High Court

The public work for compensation was the road and stormwater detention area only; the rezoning was not the public work and provisions of Variation 3 that contemplate and provide for the public works (and thus reflect the prospect of the works) must be ignored in assessing market value under s62(1)(c); Required Land is to be valued on a willing buyer/willing seller basis as General Residential zoning but excluding any increase or reduction in value caused by the works or the prospect of the works.
24 Mar 2023

COOPER v HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 611

Citation

[2023] NZHC 611
Court

High Court

The Court held rezoning is not itself a 'work' under the Public Works Act; the relevant works are the Council-controlled roading and stormwater infrastructure; causation is required under s 62(1)(e) and here rezoning caused the need for the works (not vice versa) so alleged betterment is not established as caused by the works; accordingly the land taken must be valued having regard to the residential zoning and the Council's counterclaim is dismissed.
30 Nov 2022

PASCOE v MINISTER OF LAND INFORMATION [2022] NZHC 3173

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3173
Court

High Court

The Minister is not required personally to conduct operational negotiation steps under s 18(1)(d); delegated LINZ officials may rely on accredited suppliers' operational work provided the Minister or an authorised delegate is satisfied, on the basis of the departmental system and quality assurance, that 'every endeavour' to negotiate in good faith has been made. There was no unlawful delegation here. Further, instruments effecting acquisition (including proclamations or negotiated agreements) fall within the Property Law Act's definition of 'instrument' and may exclude implied covenants under…
11 May 2021

LOGAN AND NG v MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION [2021] NZHC 1050

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1050
Court

High Court

Interim preservation order continued because the applicants' challenge was clearly arguable, there was a real risk of irreversible prejudice (loss of freehold, demolition and extinguishment of tenants' leases) if the proclamation took effect, and the balance of convenience and overall interests of justice favoured preserving the status quo pending a substantive hearing which could be allocated promptly; potential procedural unfairness and mistakes of fact in the material to the Minister reinforced need for preservation.
29 Apr 2021

LOGAN AND NG v MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION [2021] NZHC 945

Citation

[2021] NZHC 945
Court

High Court

An interim declaration was granted under s15(3)(b) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 that the Crown ought to consider the Proclamation stayed and not take further consequential action (including Registrar-General steps under s105) because such relief was reasonably necessary to preserve the applicants' position and third-party interests pending a substantive hearing given the imminent vesting and an arguable challenge.
8 Mar 2021

DILWORTH TRUST BOARD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZCA 48

Citation

[2021] NZCA 48
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the Crown must bear the consequences of the landholding agency's erroneous retention; the Chief Executive was not entitled to further time to consider ss 40(1)(b),(c) or to revive the s 40(2)(a) discretion after unreasonable delay; the Crown failed to discharge its evidential onus to establish any other public work or applicable s 40(2) exemption (and its late bus layover argument was raised too late and unsupported), therefore the Court substituted orders requiring offer back under s 40(2) subject to s 40(2A) and agreed encumbrances, and fixed the valuation date
5 Mar 2021

MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION v DROMGOOL [2021] NZCA 44

Citation

[2021] NZCA 44
Court

Court of Appeal

Where a network utility operator applies under s186 RMA the Minister must be satisfied the proposed project is capable of meeting the Environment Court's statutory test under s24(7) PWA (that compulsory acquisition would be fair, sound and reasonably necessary) but the Minister is not required to personally evaluate and select between technical or route alternatives; the Environment Court may examine adequacy of consideration of alternatives (including material from the requiring authority and any later information) and its report is binding; Minister may consider government policy and Treaty…
25 Jun 2020

NEW ZEALAND COUNCIL OF LICENSED FIREARMS OWNERS INCORPORATED v MINISTER OF POLICE [2020] NZHC 1456

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1456
Court

High Court

Court held the common law right to compensation for deprivation of property was engaged by prohibition of certain ammunition but Parliament clearly and expressly excluded ammunition from the statutory compensation regime; the Order in Council defining prohibited ammunition was within the statutory power and lawful; the Minister's recommendation not to seek compensation was not a reviewable statutory decision; all claims dismissed.