New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Precautionary principle

Legal area

Court

11 Nov 2022

THE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INITIATIVE v MINISTER FOR OCEANS AND FISHERIES [2022] NZHC 2969

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2969
Court

High Court

The Minister's CRA1 TAC decisions were unlawful because they were based on advice that was not the best available information and was materially inaccurate or misleading about the science of trophic cascades and kina barrens in north‑eastern New Zealand; accordingly mandatory environmental principles and the precautionary/ecosystem considerations in the Fisheries Act were not properly applied. The 2022/23 decision is to be reconsidered in accordance with the judgment; allegations of failure to consult were not established.
17 Aug 2022

OREWA COMMUNITY CHURCH v MINISTER FOR COVID-19 RESPONSE [2022] NZHC 2026 [16 August 2022]

Citation

[2022]3 NZLR 475
Court

High Court

The Order's CVC and gathering limits did limit s15 rights but were lawful: they were prescribed by law, pursued a sufficiently important public health objective, were rationally connected to that objective and, given the evidence and precautionary public health context, were no more impairing than reasonably necessary and proportionate both at introduction and after Omicron's arrival; challenges based on alleged failure to consider s15, arbitrariness, or delayed removal of CVCs failed.
1 Jun 2022

PRIMEPROPERTY GROUP LIMITED v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 1282

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1282
Court

High Court

The Environment Court lawfully concluded that replacing existing static billboards with digital LED displays would materially increase driver distraction on a stretch of State Highway with high deaths and serious injuries, creating an unacceptable risk that justified declining the variation to the resource consent; the High Court found that conclusion was open to the Environment Court, that reasons were adequate and legal tests properly applied, and dismissed the s299 appeal.
19 May 2022

TRANS-TASMAN RESOURCES LIMITED v TARANAKI-WHANGANUI CONSERVATION BOARD, [2022] NZSC 63

Citation

[2022] NZSC 63
Court

Supreme Court

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.
25 Feb 2022

YARDLEY v MINISTER FOR WORKPLACE RELATIONS AND SAFETY [2022] NZHC 291

Citation

(2022) 19 NZELR 125
Court

High Court

The COVID-19 Public Health Response (Specified Work Vaccinations) Order 2021 was unlawful because the Crown failed to demonstrate the limitation of fundamental rights was reasonable and demonstrably justified: the Order did not materially advance the stated objective (continuity of essential Police/NZDF services and public trust) given the small number of actually affected personnel, lack of evidence that internal policies would not have sufficed, and the limited preventive effect of vaccination against infection/transmission for variants such as Omicron; accordingly the Order was set aside.
30 Sept 2021

TRANS-TASMAN RESOURCES LIMITED v TARANAKI-WHANGANUI CONSERVATION BOARD, [2021] NZSC 127

Citation

[2021] 1 NZLR 801
Court

Supreme Court

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…
3 Apr 2020

TRANS-TASMAN RESOURCES LIMITED v TARANAKI-WHANGANUI CONSERVATION BOARD [2020] NZCA 86

Citation

[2020] NZCA 86
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed TTR's appeal but upheld the High Court's quashing of the DMC decision on other legal grounds: the DMC failed to identify and apply the s 10(1)(b) environmental protection bottom line for discharges, failed to apply the information principles by placing critical informational obligations post-consent, failed to properly consider and give effect to Māori existing interests (including kaitiakitanga and tikanga) and failed to take adequate account of the nature and effect of the RMA/NZCPS in relation to impacts within the CMA; the High Court's finding that the DMC adopted an a…
27 Feb 2020

WOOLWORTHS NEW ZEALAND LTD v ALCOHOL REGULATORY AND LICENSING AUTHORITY [2020] NZHC 293

Citation

[2020] NZHC 293
Court

High Court

The High Court held ARLA erred as a matter of law by failing to provide adequate reasons for upholding the region-wide reduction in off-licence trading hours and for upholding the temporary freeze and rebuttable presumption policies; those decisions are set aside and remitted to ARLA for redetermination. The Court further held that inclusion of mandatory local impacts reports in the PLAP and PLAP provisions requiring certain discretionary conditions to be imposed 'unless there is good reason not to' are ultra vires s77(1) of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (therefore unlawful) and rem…
31 Jul 2019

CAPITAL LIQUOR LIMITED v THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 1846

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1846
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal: the Authority did not err in law in refusing to admit the updating evidence (it was not fresh, cogent or material to alter the Committee's finding), the Committee's assessment that the appellant was unsuitable to operate an off-licence in evening high-risk hours was reasonably open on the evidence (past CPO failures, incidents, locality risk), and the 6 pm trading-hours condition was a proportionate, non-capricious regulatory measure within the Act's legitimate powers; economic prejudice and comparison with other licensees were not required considerations…
11 Oct 2018

P v Q [2018] NZHC 2647

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2647
Court

High Court

Given the limited but existent social and professional contacts between the judge and the applicant, the significance of applicant credibility in domestic violence proceedings, and the judge's adverse factual comments, a fair‑minded and fully informed observer could reasonably apprehend the judge might not be impartial; applying the precautionary principle, recusal was required.