New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Public works act 1981

Legal area

Court

10 Oct 2023

PASCOE v MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION [2023] NZHC 2836

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2836
Court

High Court

The judge declined to recuse because, on the evidence and disclosure, none of his prior professional involvement for the Minister or limited contact with the LINZ legal adviser had a logical and sufficient connection to a real and not remote possibility that he would not decide the present issue impartially; the prior matters were not relevant to the legal issue before the court and there was no ongoing relationship or pecuniary interest that could reasonably raise apprehension of bias.
6 Sept 2019

COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES LTD v HUTT CITY COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 2243

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2243
Court

High Court

The Court held the Local Government Act 2002 confers a stand-alone, broader power on local authorities to compulsorily acquire land for purposes including urban renewal, subject to the PWA procedures for notice and compensation; the s 23 notices in this case provided a sufficiently adequate general description; the other challenges failed; the judicial review application was dismissed.
18 Sept 2017

ACE DEVELOPMENTS LTD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2017] NZCA 409

Citation

[2017]3 NZLR 728
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held s61 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act excludes 'economic or consequential loss' from compensable loss and relocation costs consisting of the capital cost of acquiring substitute land are consequential economic loss and therefore excluded; s64(3) incorporates the relevant machinery of Part 5 Public Works Act (market valuation and related provisions) 'so far as practicable' but does not transform the Act into full application of Part 5 to override s61; s66 does not permit recovery of the purchase price of substitute land though incidental relocation costs (reasonable demo…
11 Mar 2016

CHARLES WILLIAM WILLIAMS & ORS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2016] NZSC 20

Citation

[2016] NZSC 20
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal's discretionary decision to withhold a declaration was fact-specific and justifiable on grounds of delay and the applicants' lack of a personal or familial interest; the contested interpretive point about "successor" was rendered moot by that discretionary outcome.
10 Dec 2015

PRYOR v THE MINISTER OF LAND INFORMATION [2015] NZHC 3117

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3117
Court

High Court

The Court accepted the Land Valuation Tribunal's factual findings and expert evidence that the land was properly valued as rural with a realistic likelihood of deferred industrial rezoning, preferred the Crown valuer's robust comparable-sales based valuation (approx. $1,780,000 plus GST), found no probative evidence of valuer misconduct or Crown bad faith, and held that disturbance and cost entitlements had been satisfied; accordingly there was no entitlement to additional compensation and the appeal was dismissed.
24 Jul 2012

SEATON v MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION SC 44/2012

Citation

SC 44/2012
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted leave because the question whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted and applied the relevant provisions of the Public Works Act 1981 is a substantive legal issue warranting this Court's consideration.
23 Aug 2011

MARK v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND SC 63/2011

Citation

SC 63/2011
Court

Supreme Court

The appeal was dismissed because, on the facts, the land was required for an essential work under s 40(1)(a) or (1)(b) of the Public Works Act 1981 despite funding uncertainty; the factual issue was properly resolved against the applicants and the stepped approach was inappropriate, so there was no merit to a leave application.
9 Sept 2009

FALOON V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC TAU CIV-2009-470-0319

Citation

openlaw-34039bcc_84d4_41d9_a2cd_40c0c1f6af63.pdf
Court

High Court

The application to recall is dismissed because the applicants did not identify any change in law or new authoritative decision, did not demonstrate counsel's failure to identify plainly relevant authority, and did not present any very special reason to justify recall under Horowhenua County v Nash (No. 2); the application merely re-litigated long-standing issues.
7 Nov 2007

RANGATIRA FORESTS LIMITED V TRANSIT NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC WN CIV-2006-483-199

Citation

openlaw-da096c78_6137_4446_92c7_efb8c0f8bc3d.pdf
Court

High Court

The contested evidence was excluded for irrelevance because it did not bear on whether a trespass or conversion occurred (setting aside acquiescence), did not address acquiescence in fact, and did not affect the pleaded measure of damages; leave to seek the evidence later was confined to issues of costs.