New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reserves act 1977

Legal area

Court

7 Oct 2022

WHANARUA BEACHFRONT PROPERTY OWNERS GROUP INCORPORATED SOCIETY v ŌPŌTIKI DISTRICT COUNCIL & ORS [2022] NZHC 2589

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2589
Court

High Court

The Property Owners' legitimate expectation claim failed because the Council's statements were conditional, not a clear and unambiguous promise to grant an easement pre-transfer and any expectation of a substantive property right inconsistent with the statutory Reserves Act procedure was not reasonable or legitimate; consultation met statutory requirements and there was no disqualifying bias or irrelevant consideration affecting the Decision, so the judicial review application is dismissed.
30 Jun 2020

OPUA COASTAL PRESERVATION INCORPORATED v FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL & ORS [2020] NZHC 1499

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1499
Court

High Court

The Court held the defendants were the overall successful parties; the permission decision did not significantly increase the applicant's costs; the public interest in the proceedings was limited so only modest reductions were appropriate (15% reduction to the Council and 7.5% to Mr Schmuck for public interest considerations), and a 30% reduction to each for the commonality/overlap of defence under r 14.15; accordingly separate awards of reduced 2B scale costs were made to the first and third defendants with specified disbursements.
15 Jun 2017

HAURAKI GULF ENHANCEMENT SOCIETY INC v AUCKLAND COUNCIL & ORS [2017] NZHC 1322

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1322
Court

High Court

The security for costs order was not improperly obtained: the Court found no misconduct by the Golf Club or Council, the omitted facts were not material to the narrow security for costs decision, Toogood J made only broad, non‑conclusive observations on merits, and disclosure of the additional material would not have led to a different outcome; accordingly rescission under r 7.51 was not justified.
16 Dec 2014

NZSKI LTD v DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CONSERVATION [2014] NZHC 3245

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3245
Court

High Court

The lease's renewal clauses (cl 1 and cl 26i), read in context and against the Reserves Act statutory framework, contemplate an offer by the lessor and acceptance by the lessee resulting in a new lease on renewal; therefore the 1996 amendments remove Ministerial power to grant a renewed lease and the concession regime under s59A/Part 3B of the Conservation Act will apply on expiry in 2022, and s17O(3)(b) does not avoid the concession requirement.
1 Jul 2011

OTEHEI BAY HOLDINGS LIMITED (CA57/2010; CA684/2010) V FULLERS BAY OF ISLANDS LIMITED COA CA57/2010

Citation

openlaw-14d9bbf1_0ee7_440b_ad5a_812d86894ba4.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Majority held that when the Crown acquired Urupukapuka Island in 1970 the leasehold estate fell within the scope of the reserves legislation; renewals at expiry of five-year terms constituted new grants; s21(2) migrated existing leases into the 1996 concessions regime so leases renewed after 1 July 1996 required a concession under Part 3B of the Conservation Act; therefore allowing the leasehold activity post-1996 without a concession was unlawful and the appeals fail (subject to variation of a publicity/injunction order).
29 Nov 2007

HAWLEY AND ORS V RANGITIKEI DISTRICT COUNCIL HC WANG CIV-2007-483-377

Citation

openlaw-73e806ea_8ad0_4d4f_8ef6_7aba37f3d944.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs failed to establish a seriously arguable case of proprietary estoppel because the building consents were not a clear and unequivocal representation by the Council that plaintiffs would receive permanent occupancy rights over Council land; accordingly interim injunction was refused.
4 Jul 2006

THE RANGITOTO ISLAND BACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED AND ANOR V THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CONSERVATION AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2004-485-2378

Citation

openlaw-2761c513_e819_4196_b88e_5b9147acc4bb.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court awarded costs to RIBCA because the proceedings were both complex and significant, requiring counsel of special skill and experience (category 3C under r48); the respondents' arguments of special privilege and disentitling conduct were rejected; accordingly RIBCA was awarded $29,025 and disbursements of $2,941.34 totalling $31,966.34.

New Zealand Case Law

WHANARUA BEACHFRONT PROPERTY OWNERS GROUP INCORPORATED SOCIETY v ŌPŌTIKI DISTRICT COUNCIL & ORS [2022] NZHC 2589

OPUA COASTAL PRESERVATION INCORPORATED v FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL & ORS [2020] NZHC 1499

HAURAKI GULF ENHANCEMENT SOCIETY INC v AUCKLAND COUNCIL & ORS [2017] NZHC 1322

NZSKI LTD v DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CONSERVATION [2014] NZHC 3245

OTEHEI BAY HOLDINGS LIMITED (CA57/2010; CA684/2010) V FULLERS BAY OF ISLANDS LIMITED COA CA57/2010

HAWLEY AND ORS V RANGITIKEI DISTRICT COUNCIL HC WANG CIV-2007-483-377

THE RANGITOTO ISLAND BACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED AND ANOR V THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CONSERVATION AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2004-485-2378