New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Conditions of consent

Legal area

Court

17 Jul 2023

HEATLEY v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF LAND INFORMATION NEW ZEALAND [2023] NZHC 1856 [17 Jul 2023]

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1856
Court

High Court

The 2010 decision to grant a vendor purchasing programme was ultra vires to the extent that it purported to dispense with the requirement that decision-makers be satisfied of all mandatory s16 criteria as to unidentified purchasers; however, the Court exercised its discretion not to quash or set aside the 2010 consent given the significant public and third-party interests and the principle of validity, and declared that overseas investors may purchase lots in reliance on the 2010 consent if they satisfy special condition 2 incorporating the investor tests in force at the date the consent was…
27 Sept 2022

THE CANYON VINEYARD LTD v CENTRAL OTAGO DISTRICT COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 2458

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2458
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal: the Environment Court did not err in law in receiving and considering the updated (second revised) plans, properly exercised its s276 evidence powers and case-management directions, reasonably concluded the proposal was not contrary to the Plan and adverse visual effects were no more than minor under s104D, and correctly refused conditions that lacked evidential foundation; ministerial or cultural evidence raised did not establish material error; limited clerical omission (secondary mound on Lot 8) to be remedied by replacing approved plans in consultation…
17 Mar 2021

ENTERPRISE MIRAMAR PENINSULA INC v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 549 [17 March 2021]

Citation

[2021] NZHC 549
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the judicial review: the Panel had sufficient probative material (including expert reports) to conclude transportation effects could be accommodated and be no more than minor in context, and to be satisfied under s34(2) that sufficient and appropriate roading infrastructure could be provided subject to conditions; the Panel applied s34(1) and the prescribed weighing hierarchy correctly and any arguable errors were not material to the outcome.
27 Oct 2020

JOLLY v CENTRAL OTAGO DISTRICT COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 2808

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2808
Court

High Court

Because the Commissioner’s process was complete, the late introduction of a compromise on Jolly Road sealing deprived the Trust of an opportunity to be heard and the evidence demonstrated that there was effectively no other lawful decision the Commissioner could have made consistent with proper procedural fairness and mitigation of dust, and because remitting would be impractical and the parties consented, the High Court may and should substitute its decision by consent to amend conditions 4A and 4B to extend sealing to the specified point.
9 Sept 2020

COROMANDEL WATCHDOG OF HAURAKI (INCORPORATED) v MINISTER OF FINANCE AND ASSOCIATE MINISTER OF FINANCE [2020] NZHC 2345

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2345
Court

High Court

The Act prescribes a closed list of criteria and factors for assessing benefit; Ministers did not err in law by excluding broad 'detrimental effects' as separate mandatory considerations because detriments are only relevant where they affect the counterfactual assessment of the statutorily enumerated factors; Ministerial directives cannot add new mandatory statutory factors; the consents and conditions were lawfully imposed and the application for judicial review is dismissed.
9 Sept 2020

COROMANDEL WATCHDOG OF HAURAKI (INCORPORATED) v MINISTER OF FINANCE AND ASSOCIATE MINISTER OF FINANCE [2020] NZHC 2345

Citation

COROMANDEL WATCHDOG OF HAURAKI (INCORPORATED) v MINISTER OF FINANCE AND ASSOCIATE MINISTER OF FINANCE [2020] NZHC 2345
Court

High Court

The Act's criteria and factors (s16, s17 and reg28) are prescriptive and focus on benefits; Ministers did not err by excluding general environmental detriments unless those detriments are captured within the prescribed statutory factors or considered within the required counterfactual/intra-factor assessment; a ministerial directive cannot create additional mandatory considerations; judicial review dismissed.
28 May 2020

AHUAREKA TRUSTEES (NO 2) LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2020] NZCA 191

Citation

[2020] NZCA 191
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the High Court did not err in law: the Environment Court permissibly weighed the RPS and district provisions in the AUP, distinguished the Kumeu decision, and reasonably discounted the Waikopua enhancement as insufficiently certain and inadequate to meet precinct requirements; the issues do not raise matters of general or public importance nor a real risk of miscarriage of justice.
26 Sept 2019

ASPROS v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL & ANOR [2019] NZHC 1684

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1684
Court

High Court

The Court held the Council did not commit an error of law: the application complied with s 88 and the Council obtained adequate further information under s 92 before deciding; recession plane and site coverage measurements and the application of the permitted baseline were lawfully applied; the non-notification decision (no public or limited notification) was lawful and not unreasonable; and the conditions imposed were lawful certifier conditions — therefore the judicial review application was dismissed.
11 Jul 2018

NGAI TE HAPU INCORPORATED v BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 1710

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1710
Court

High Court

The appeal was dismissed because Ngāi Te Hapū Inc failed to pay ordered security for costs and the appeal had no realistic prospect of success: most substantive grounds were out of time, many alleged errors were factual evaluations outside a s299 appeal, and the Environment Court lawfully concluded it could not require full removal of the wreck as a condition of a consent to abandon; the Environment Court properly considered expert evidence, Māori and Treaty matters and imposed lawful, reasonably related conditions including monitoring and offsets.
7 Jun 2013

ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v BULLER DISTRICT COUNCIL AND WEST COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL & Anor [2013] NZHC 1346

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1346
Court

High Court

Offsets and other positive environmental measures proffered by applicants are relevant considerations under s104(1)(a) and s5(2) and may be weighed in the overall sustainable management judgement, but such offsets are not the same as mitigation properly understood under s5(2)(c); the Environment Court erred in treating DBEA/HBEA as 'offset mitigation' and must separately assess mitigation at the point of impact and offsets when reconsidering conditions; DPPA and other proffers are lawful considerations though weight is for the Environment Court to assess and efficacy/security of benefits is a…