New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Permitted baseline

Legal area

Court

17 Jun 2022

PROTECT AOTEA v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 1428

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1428
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Environment Court did not err in law: effects of dumping in the EEZ are within the consequential effects of allowing dredging but where there is a sufficient marine dumping consent under the EEZ Act that consent forms part of the existing environment and obviates the need for a competing RMA assessment; nexus and remoteness are factual matters and the existence of a comparable EEZ regulatory regime is not, as a matter of law, a jurisdictional bar to consideration but in this case the Environment Court properly concluded no further assessment was required.
3 Jun 2022

WALLACE & Ors v THE AUCKLAND COUNCIL & Anor [2022] NZHC 1299

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1299
Court

High Court

Interim relief was refused because the applicants failed to show that such orders were reasonably necessary to preserve their position given the advanced stage of construction, the Commissioners had directly addressed prior errors, applicants delayed seeking interim relief and refused to give undertakings, and the prejudice to the developer and purchasers outweighed potential benefits.
10 Feb 2021

LYSAGHT v WHAKATANE DISTRICT COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 68

Citation

(2021) 22 ELRNZ383
Court

High Court

The High Court held the council's non-notification and grant of consent was lawful and reasonable in relation to traffic effects on owners of the Māori Roadway (effects were less than minor and median strip effects could be treated under the permitted baseline), and conditions precedent requiring road upgrades on third party land were valid; however the council breached a legitimate expectation to engage with Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa and failed to adequately assess pedestrian (including child) safety effects, so the decision to grant consent on a non-notified basis is set aside and the council…
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.
17 Mar 2020

HAINES HOUSE HAULAGE NORTHLAND LTD v WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 525

Citation

[2020] NZHC 525
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Environment Court erred in law by failing to consider the Rural Area provisions of the District Plan and by failing to consider the Amended Landscape Plan and associated evidence; the Environment Court also treated Lot 1 in a way unsupported by the Plan's definition of site and by the evidence and either lacked jurisdiction to impose a condition prohibiting a permitted dwelling on Lot 1 or any such condition would have been unreasonable under Newbury; the failure to consider material evidence constituted a breach of natural justice; accordingly the Environment Court's…
9 Dec 2019

KNOWLES v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 3227

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3227
Court

High Court

QLDC's non‑notification and substantive s104 decisions were invalid because the council failed to give adequate weight to the LDSR rezoning in the PDP when it was very likely to remain operative (CSF's appeal had low prospect of success); that failure to consider a relevant circumstance was a material reviewable error warranting quashing and remittal. Other alleged errors (including reference to a permitted 8m building on 3 York Street) were either not reviewable or not material to the outcome.
18 Nov 2019

SPEARGRASS HOLDINGS LTD & ORS v VAN BRANDENBURG & ORS [2019] NZCA 564

Citation

(2019) 21 ELRNZ 466
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal. Although the Council made a legal error in assessing the permitted baseline for RM130766, the High Court properly exercised its discretion to refuse judicial review relief because Speargrass unreasonably delayed bringing the claim and that delay caused real prejudice to the Flax Trust (wasted costs and reliance from subsequent proceedings); the substantive RMA issues about mound height and configuration should be addressed in the Environment Court or by fresh RMA process. The PLA claim for removal was refused because, while the as-built mound unduly affected re…
29 Oct 2019

MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ZINDIA LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2765

Citation

(2019) 21 ELRNZ 364
Court

High Court

The Environment Court erred in interpreting Consent U120345.1 as expressly authorising commercial forestry harvesting; the correct construction is that the consent authorised preparatory works for harvesting (roads, landings, culverts, barge ramp) and some volunteered mitigation conditions, but did not extend to authorise the felling and removal of trees across the block. Accordingly the abatement notice cancelling those operations was improperly set aside and must be reinstated.
26 Sept 2019

ASPROS v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL & ANOR [2019] NZHC 1684

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1684
Court

High Court

The Court held the Council did not commit an error of law: the application complied with s 88 and the Council obtained adequate further information under s 92 before deciding; recession plane and site coverage measurements and the application of the permitted baseline were lawfully applied; the non-notification decision (no public or limited notification) was lawful and not unreasonable; and the conditions imposed were lawful certifier conditions — therefore the judicial review application was dismissed.
10 Apr 2019

VIPASSANA FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST BOARD v AUCKLAND COUNCIL & ORS [2019] NZCA 100

Citation

[2019] NZCA 100
Court

Court of Appeal

The Council issued the certificate without sufficient information to determine compliance with the District Plan earthworks limits because the application and supporting material did not reliably establish the extent of cut/fill/berms and the certificate's number of bays exceeded what could be achieved within plan earthworks thresholds; on that basis the certificate was unlawfully issued and the appeal is allowed and the certificate set aside. Other challenges (noise, discharge under ALWP, and remedy concerning the existing building) were rejected or found remediable, but the earthworks infor…