19 May 2022
Costs follow the event; appellant must pay costs of NZD 155,000 plus usual disbursements to the first respondents, with allowance for second counsel; Court of Appeal costs awards remain undisturbed; High Court to determine its costs in light of this decision.
30 Sept 2021
Appeal dismissed. For marine discharge and dumping consents the decision-maker mustapply s10(1) purposes substantively: s10(1)(b) operates as an environmental bottom linerequiring that if material harm from a discharge cannot be avoided, mitigated so as to begiven immaterial effect, or remedied within a reasonable timeframe (taking into accounttotal duration of harm, nature of harm, existing interests and human health), the consentmust be declined. The s59 factors and s61/87E information principles must be appliedto achieve those purposes; where information is inadequate and a cautious approa…
28 Aug 2018
The DMC erred in law by adopting an unduly narrow interpretation of 'adaptive management' that excluded staged/conditional regimes which allow monitoring-driven continuation or amendment (not only outright discontinuance); several of the consent conditions imposed effectively constituted or contributed to an adaptive management approach for a discharge consent which is prohibited in the EEZ context, rendering the decision legally flawed; the DMC's decision is quashed and remitted for reconsideration applying the correct legal test.