New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discharge of contaminants

Legal area

Court

9 Feb 2023

FAULKNER v BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 145

Citation

[2023] NZHC 145
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal because the District Court judge did not err in law or fact: the prosecution established each statutory element beyond reasonable doubt, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council had jurisdiction and authority under the RMA to investigate and prosecute, Treaty and tikanga do not displace Acts of Parliament though they must be considered within the RMA, and there was no miscarriage of justice.
15 Dec 2022

BOYD v Taranaki REGIONAL COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 3451

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3451
Court

High Court

The High Court found no error in the judge's assessment of the evidence; the judge was entitled to prefer and place significant weight on the Council's expert reports concluding Diversion 2 caused significant, cumulative and long‑lasting environmental and cultural harm; groundwater contribution did not negate the presence of aquatic life once it entered the stream; accordingly the District Court sentence was not excessive and was upheld.
18 Nov 2020

NORTHLAKE INVESTMENTS LTD v OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL [2020] NZCA 567

Citation

[2020] NZCA 567
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was granted because the question of whether a developer who reasonably engages and relies on expert advice can be held liable under s 15 (as active or passive discharger) and/or under s 340 is a matter of general importance and the lower courts did not conclusively resolve the issue; the reasonableness of Northlake's reliance on expert advice requires appellate determination.
28 May 2020

NORTHLAKE INVESTMENTS LIMITED v OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 1144

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1144
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the conviction because on the totality of the evidence Northlake, as developer and consent holder, failed to take all reasonable precautions a prudent developer would have taken to prevent sediment discharge into water: the SMP and controls were inadequate and were not properly revised after the July 2017 discharge, the rainfall events were within foreseeable ranges and should have been provided for, and reliance on the contractor did not absolve Northlake of its statutory duty under the RMA; the sentence of $42,500 was not manifestly excessive and the modest disparity w…
21 May 2019

BROOK VALLEY COMMUNITY GROUP INCORPORATED v BROOK WAIMARAMA SANCTUARY TRUST [2019] NZSC 51

Citation

[2019] NZSC 51
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the issues were fact-specific with limited prospects of success, the regulation-making challenge lacked a sufficient factual foundation to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice, the aerial drop had already occurred so further appeal would have little practical effect, and the costs discount decision was fact-specific and did not warrant further appeal.
11 Dec 2018

BROOK VALLEY COMMUNITY GROUP INC v THE BROOK WAIMARAMA SANCTUARY TRUST [2018] NZCA 573

Citation

[2018] NZCA 573
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the Exemption Regulations were validly made under s360(1)(h) RMA and consistent with the RMA's purpose; because 'discharge' in s2 includes 'deposit', an exemption from s15 that authorises a discharge of brodifacoum also covers consequent deposits in riverbeds so no separate s13 consent was required; leave to adduce further evidence was declined; appeal dismissed and costs awarded to respondents.
20 Jul 2018

OPUA COASTAL PRESERVATION INCORPORATED v FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL [2018] NZCA 262

Citation

[2018] 2 NZLR538
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal: the 2015 Ministerial consent (given by Council as delegate) was quashed insofar as it authorised easements that 1) did not accommodate the dominant tenement (storage and standalone repair on the reserve) or 2) were so broad and uncertain as to amount to joint/exclusive occupation and deprive the servient owner of possession and control; easements A3 (construction/containment wash-down area as part of slipway) and E (discharge of contaminants/noise subject to resource consents) were valid and are preserved.
30 Jun 2017

VIPASSANA FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST BOARD v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 1492

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1492
Court

High Court

The certificate of compliance was flawed procedurally but because the errors were minor or mitigated by undertakings and the applicants acted in good faith, the proper remedy was to direct the Auckland Council to reconsider the decision under s 139 RMA while leaving the certificate in effect pending that reconsideration pursuant to s 4(5C) Judicature Amendment Act 1972; reconsideration must be on the basis of the planning instruments at the date of the application.
28 Aug 2015

ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 2058

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2058
Court

High Court

Under High Court Rules r 18.7 and r 18.8 the court must direct service and representation on persons or classes with interests greater than the public generally; because the proposed declarations have region-wide and sector-wide ramifications the court ordered service on all regional councils and specified organisations to ensure adequate representation of affected interests.