New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Part 2 rma

Legal area

Court

17 Apr 2023

SUSTAINABLE OTAKIRI INCORPORATED v WHAKATĀNE DISTRICT COUNCIL [2023] NZSC 35 [17 April 2023]

Citation

[2023] NZSC 35
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was granted on specified points of law, including permission for Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa to challenge the High Court's exclusion of negative tikanga effects and an extension of time for that application, because the issues raised were proper legal questions to be considered on appeal and could be heard together; the application for leave to appeal on costs was declined because the Court considered the jurisprudence on awarding costs against public-interest litigants is not yet at a stage warranting this Court's intervention.
29 Jul 2021

TE RŪNANGA O NGĀTI AWA v BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2021] NZCA 354

Citation

[2021] NZCA 354
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court granted leave to appeal on five focused questions of law reformulated from the applicants' petitions because those questions raised arguable points of law concerning the scope of environmental effects (end-use plastic bottles), the role of Part 2 and Treaty considerations, and the correct legal characterisation of the activity under the district plan and s127; challenges to factual findings about tikanga evidence were not granted leave because identification of tikanga is principally a factual question for expert evidence or the Maori Appellate Court as explained in Takamore v Clark…
8 May 2020

CLASSIC DEVELOPMENTS NZ LTD v TAURANGA CITY COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 945

Citation

[2020] NZHC 945
Court

High Court

The council lawfully exercised its discretion: it had adequate information, properly applied the notification tests under ss 95A/95B (finding no special circumstances and no affected persons), permissibly treated the unimplemented healthcare consent as part of the existing environment on a realistic factual basis, had regard to relevant plan objectives and policies and Part 2 where appropriate, and the substantive grant of the non‑complying consent under ss 104/104D was within the range of reasonable outcomes; judicial review does not permit re‑weighing competing planner opinions.
15 Mar 2019

R J DAVIDSON FAMILY TRUST v MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL [2019] NZCA 57

Citation

[2019] NZCA 57
Court

Court of Appeal

A consent authority may consider Part 2 of the RMA directly when deciding resource consent applications; however, where a district or regional plan has been prepared in a manner that appropriately reflects Part 2, recourse to Part 2 will not add anything and cannot justify an outcome contrary to the plan; the High Court's rule precluding case‑by‑case reference to Part 2 was erroneous but of no consequence in this case because there were no reasons to depart from the plan's expression of Part 2.
25 Oct 2005

MARTINEZ V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR CA CA144/05

Citation

openlaw-6cfff67a_ae99_425e_8318_e99e66aa758a.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for special leave was declined because the issues did not raise questions of law of general or public importance, controlling precedent (Smith Chilcott) applied, any error was one of application rather than principle, and the point had been abandoned in the course of protracted litigation.

New Zealand Case Law

SUSTAINABLE OTAKIRI INCORPORATED v WHAKATĀNE DISTRICT COUNCIL [2023] NZSC 35 [17 April 2023]

TE RŪNANGA O NGĀTI AWA v BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2021] NZCA 354

CLASSIC DEVELOPMENTS NZ LTD v TAURANGA CITY COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 945

R J DAVIDSON FAMILY TRUST v MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL [2019] NZCA 57

MARTINEZ V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR CA CA144/05