New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Notification under rma s93

Legal area

Court

11 Dec 2008

P J MCCONNELL AND K F MCCONNELL V FRANKLIN DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2008-404-007903

Citation

openlaw-257b0a40_d27f_41cd_8d0d_67501811284b.pdf
Court

High Court

The council lawfully declined to publicly notify the application because it properly applied ss93, 94, 94C and s104 of the RMA, considered relevant matters including existing screening, did not err by refusing to speculate about future development or unimplemented consents, and reached a decision a reasonable decision-maker could have reached; consequently the judicial review had little prospect of success and the ex parte restraining order was set aside.
31 May 2006

MONTESSORI PRE-SCHOOL CHARITABLE TRUST V WAIKATO DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ANOR HC HAM CIV-2006-419-91

Citation

openlaw-befdee23_7dd3_45bc_a09d_eee224d9fc4c.pdf
Court

High Court

Delegation to the consents manager was valid and he lawfully exercised s93; it is permissible when making the s93 decision to have regard to conditions likely to be imposed under s108; the Trust and the Bhanas were in trade competition so trade competition was irrelevant under s104(3)(a); the evidence before the delegate and the Committee provided a solid basis to conclude adverse effects would be no more than minor and that the non-notified grant and subsequent consent under ss104 and 104D were lawful, so the judicial review challenge failed.