New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Existing use rights

Legal area

Court

10 Mar 2021

O’KEEFFE v NEW PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COUNCIL [2021] NZCA 55

Citation

(2021) 22 ELRNZ 506
Court

Court of Appeal

The Council was furnished with adequate information (including an amended TIA and s92 responses) and reasonably concluded adverse effects of the redevelopment, including those from special events (traffic, parking, noise) and the relocated vicarage on visual amenity/viewshafts, were less than minor; therefore limited notification was not required, the grant of consent was lawful, and the appeal is dismissed.
10 Dec 2020

SIMONS PASS STATION LIMITED v MACKENZIE DISTRICT COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 3265

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3265
Court

High Court

The High Court held that the Environment Court did not err in law in interpreting 'granted' in Rule 15A.2.1 to mean 'granted and commenced' in the s116 Resource Management Act sense because the immediate context was ambiguous, the broader context and purpose of the plan change (to protect Mackenzie Basin landscape values), the history and limits on the Environment Court's scope when making the plan change, and considerations of fairness supported reading the rule to capture only permits where appeals were resolved or the consent had otherwise commenced by 14 November 2015, an available and ra…
7 Oct 2016

LAU v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 2397

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2397
Court

High Court

The appeals were dismissed because the appellant failed to show any error of law in the Environment Court decision, lacked standing or authority to appeal abatement notices addressed to registered owners, and did not rebut the Environment Court's factual and credibility findings; accordingly the High Court upheld the Environment Court's dismissal and strike out of the appeals.
21 Jul 2016

FOOTSTEPS TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 1669

Citation

[2016] NZAR 1324
Court

High Court

Applicant failed to demonstrate a genuine and substantial dispute: the valuation objection lacked mandatory particulars and was properly rejected; filing an objection did not suspend the statutory obligation to pay rates; the statutory demand was a permissible enforcement mechanism not excluded by s63 LGRA; abatement notices remained presumptively valid and did not excuse non‑payment, so the statutory demand was not set aside.
12 Dec 2014

MERIDIAN ENERGY LIMITED v SOUTHLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 3178

Citation

(2014) 18 ELRNZ 473
Court

High Court

Section 9(3) RMA does not apply to land use activities that are necessary or requisite to operate the Manapouri Power Station pursuant to s4 of the MTADA; all other MPS land use activities remain subject to the RMA and may require resource consent.
28 Nov 2014

NORTH CANTERBURY CLAY TARGET ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED v WAIMAKARIRI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 3021

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3021
Court

High Court

The phrase "any dwelling house" in the plan's noise rule includes dwellings constructed after the certificate of compliance was issued; a certificate of compliance, while treated as a deemed resource consent, remains subject to the plan's conditions and does not exempt the holder from complying with the noise limits measured at any notional boundary including new dwellings, so the Association remains obliged to meet the noise rule despite changes in the receiving environment.
20 Nov 2014

SADDLE VIEWS ESTATE LIMITED v DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 2897

Citation

(2014) 18 ELRNZ 97
Court

High Court

High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Environment Court's declaration that the quarry was unauthorised, because the Environment Court erred in law by (1) relying on an unpleaded finding of conflict of interest without giving parties opportunity to address it, and (2) improperly discounting the Edwards letter by assuming the Council lacked power to impose conditions in the early 1960s; when those errors removed, the contemporaneous Edwards letter and 1973 council minutes raised a reasonable possibility that a consent had been granted and the Council failed to prove on the balance of pro…
6 Jun 2014

KAPITI HIGH VOLTAGE COALITION INCORPORATED v KAPITI COAST DISTRICT COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 1281

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1281
Court

High Court

The court exercised its discretion to award a reduced amount of costs because Transpower's post‑judgment decision to remove the lines materially achieved the plaintiffs' aims but the trial judgment showed mixed success; accordingly plaintiffs are awarded 25% of Band B scale costs and 25% of disbursements as a modest reflection of settlement impact while recognising the underlying judgment and mixed trial outcome.
12 Jun 2013

MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v FRANKLIN & ANOR [2013] NZHC 1391

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1391
Court

High Court

The Court held s139A(1)(a) and (b) refer to the same existing use right for which certification is sought (regardless of whether the use is actually being conducted at the date of issue), whereas s139A(1)(c) requires specification of the use in fact being conducted at the date the certificate is issued (by character, intensity and scale); a certificate may be issued even if the use has not resumed, but such a certificate has limited practical effect as a consent equivalent.
21 Feb 2013

KAPITI COAST DISTRICT COUNCIL V KAPITI HIGH VOLTAGE COALITION INCORPORATED HC WN CIV-2008-485-2723

Citation

openlaw-6e2d3877_21a8_4a78_b81d_0854a4a2e68e.pdf
Court

High Court

The three month direction for filing RMA applications (referenced at [299] of the substantive judgment) was stayed pending determination of the appeal and cross-appeal because the cross-appeal is arguable and bona fide, the direction is severable from the declarations, and a stay avoids unnecessary cost and effort; due to Transpower's delay in applying for the stay, no order for costs was made.