New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Consultation requirements

Legal area

Court

17 Oct 2022

KAIKŌURA AND HURUNUI LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED v THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES [2022] NZHC 2677

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2677
Court

High Court

The application for judicial review is dismissed: (1) the notices were not void for uncertainty and their terms (including 'South Island fisheries waters' and boundary descriptions) are sufficiently ascertainable for those affected; (2) the Minister had a reasonable evidential foundation to be satisfied reg 20(1)(c) was met (areas were mahinga kai/identified traditional fishing grounds and of a size appropriate to effective management by tangata whenua) and acted within the scope of the Regulations interpreted through tikanga; and (3) the consultation requirements in the Regulations and the d…
7 Oct 2021

NEW ZEALAND AVIATION FEDERATION (INC) v CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF NEW ZEALAND [2021] NZHC 2674

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2674
Court

High Court

CAR 19.207(3) must be read to require both the carriage of specified non-GNSS (sole-means) navigation equipment and that those sole-means systems be appropriate to and able to provide navigation for the specific route segment; the Director validly exercised s37(2)(d) to exempt operators from the 'appropriate for the route' limb subject to conditions that mitigate safety risk pending rule change; allegations of improper purpose, abuse of discretion, failure to consult and Wednesbury unreasonableness were not established and the NZAF's claims were dismissed.
21 Apr 2021

WĀNAKA STAKEHOLDERS GROUP INCORPORATED v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 852

Citation

[2021] NZHC 852
Court

High Court

The 100-year lease, while not transferring freehold title, transferred effective and substantial control over the strategic asset Wanaka Airport to QAC; such a transfer of control triggers s97 LGA and required explicit provision in QLDC's long-term plan and appropriate consultation under the LGA. QLDC's consultation (Statement of Proposal) did not fairly disclose the true scope and duration of the control being granted and did not therefore comply with the LGA. Consequently the decision to grant the lease was unlawful and the lease is set aside. The lease did not transfer legal ownership of t…
31 Oct 2019

SKILLS ACTIVE AOTEAROA LIMITED v THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION [2019] NZHC 2800

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2800
Court

High Court

The Court held the Crown had no public law obligation to afford Skills Active bespoke direct consultation beyond the public formal consultation process; no clear unequivocal representation or practice gave rise to a legitimate expectation; natural justice did not require bespoke consultation in the policy‑formulation phase; the six (extended to seven) week consultation period and refusals to extend were reasonable in context; Treaty obligations did not impose a special duty to consult Skills Active; and the Crown provided sufficient information for high‑level consultation, so judicial review…
7 Sept 2011

NELSON GAMBLING TASKFORCE INCORPORATED V NELSON CITY COUNCIL HC NEL CIV 2010-442-368

Citation

openlaw-5a79fa9d_4714_41c6_b7d4_1a915be23e62.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that attaching the draft policy did not satisfy the statutory requirement for a detailed statement of proposal when amending an existing policy; the Council’s broader 2010 amendments (other than the expressly flagged machine cap reduction) were made without complying with ss83 and 87(2)(b)/87(3) and are therefore invalid; the Trillian Trust territorial consent, granted under those invalid amendments, is invalid but the venue licence issue was not determinatively addressed and third‑party prejudice did not outweigh the need to grant relief.
24 Aug 2009

STOP THE STADIUM SOCIETY INC V THE DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL CA CA269/2009

Citation

openlaw-354fc18e_64db_42b3_ad61_5110ba262787.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Although the Council's capital contribution increased from that projected in the 2008 long-term plan, when cost is measured as the Council's ongoing financing cost (annual debt servicing and average per-ratepayer cost) over the relevant term the increase was not of a high degree of significance under s97(1)(d); therefore the Council did not breach s97(2) and the appeal fails.
19 Dec 2007

THE RETIREMENT VILLAGES ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED V THE MINISTER FOR BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION HC WN CIV-2007-485-2139

Citation

openlaw-e15d6e5d_a7ac_46a4_a5d9_49efc245ca04.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court interpreted the Act as authorising a code that applies to existing occupation right agreements (relying on s92(2)(b), the Act's consistent use of 'residents' and 'intending residents', the one year transitional period and the disputes mechanism), but held that the statutory approval process in s89 was not complied with and that the defendant failed to adequately consult the industry submitter before materially amending its draft; because the statutory process and consultation obligations were not observed the Code as gazetted is invalid and of no effect.
21 Mar 2007

NEIL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, CORNERSTONE GROUP LIMITED, LANDCO LIMITED, UNIVERSAL HOMES LIMITED, SYMPHONY PROJECTS LIMITED AND BAYSWATER APARTMENTS LIMITED V THE NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2005-404-4690

Citation

openlaw-71ac6b87_9ff7_4c44_be31_b7743db37195.pdf
Court

High Court

Before a development contribution may be required the council must identify the project as a 'development' under s197 and establish a causal nexus under s199 (either alone or cumulatively) that it will cause capital expenditure; furthermore when selecting funding sources the council must, activity by activity, apply and weigh the s101(3) factors including distribution of benefits rather than adopting a blanket causation approach that excludes benefit distribution.
26 Feb 2007

TONI COLIN REIHANA V THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CONSERVATION HC INV CIV-2005-425-75

Citation

openlaw-3a3c2797_8b32_4351_967e_084795ce11dc.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the regulations raised substantive concerns about non-owners voting and uncertain beneficiary voting rights that required consultation with owners, the Court restrained promulgation and ordered a consultation process and a three-month review by telephone conference to preserve the status quo pending further order.