New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Resource consent

Legal area

Court

20 Jul 2023

WALLACE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v WAIPA DISTRICT COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 1895

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1895
Court

High Court

Applicants were prima facie entitled to costs because the grant of the subsequent amended consent effectively provided the relief sought; parties shared responsibility for continuation after 17 October 2022 so costs after that date lie where they fall; respondent ordered to pay applicants $10,516 plus disbursements $440 with costs calculated at category 2B daily rate $2,390 for specified steps up to 2 November 2022.
26 May 2023

WOOD v WAINUI HOLDINGS LTD [2023] NZHC 1251

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1251
Court

High Court

It was reasonably arguable that the vendor did not validly cancel the contract on 30 May 2022 because there was insufficient evidence that completion of the subdivision was prevented or that any opinion to refuse completion was reasonably held; therefore the purchaser had an equitable interest in PU5 capable of supporting a caveat and the caveat should be sustained on terms requiring the purchaser to prosecute substantive proceedings or until the vendor affirms the contract.
21 Dec 2022

CURRIE AND CURRIE v PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 3591

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3591
Court

High Court

One of the two primary issues had an available starting point such that pursuit by the appellants was not unreasonable, but the second issue was hopeless given established law favouring substance over form in resource consent contexts. Applying Bathurst, a modest uplift of 25% was appropriate. Costs were awarded to both respondents on a 2B scale with a 25% uplift, resulting in specified sums for each respondent.
2 Dec 2022

SAHAR EHSANI INVESTMENT LTD v RETYRED (2020) LTD [2022] NZHC 3213

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3213
Court

High Court

An interim (mandatory) injunction was justified because there is a serious question to be tried that the defendants breached the agreement to lease and lease by stockpiling tyres without evidence of recycling activity and without required resource consent, the balance of convenience and public/third‑party/environmental risk favoured injunctive relief, and overall justice supported interim relief while costs are reserved to the substantive hearing; a separate injunction restraining trespass onto adjoining land was also appropriate.
27 Sept 2022

THE CANYON VINEYARD LTD v CENTRAL OTAGO DISTRICT COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 2458

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2458
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal: the Environment Court did not err in law in receiving and considering the updated (second revised) plans, properly exercised its s276 evidence powers and case-management directions, reasonably concluded the proposal was not contrary to the Plan and adverse visual effects were no more than minor under s104D, and correctly refused conditions that lacked evidential foundation; ministerial or cultural evidence raised did not establish material error; limited clerical omission (secondary mound on Lot 8) to be remedied by replacing approved plans in consultation…
2 Sept 2022

KEITH MERVYN GEORGE HUNTER v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2022] NZSC 104

Citation

[2022] NZSC 104
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave was dismissed because the proposed appeal raised factual, case-specific disputes about amenity effects and merits of the Panel's assessment rather than questions of general or public importance, and there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice or demonstrable procedural error or bias to justify leave.
27 Jun 2022

TŪPUNA MAUNGA O TĀMAKI MAKAURAU AUTHORITY v AVERIL ROSEMARY NORMAN AND WARWICK BRUCE NORMAN [2022] NZSC 79

Citation

[2022] NZSC 79
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal resolved a narrow procedural issue by applying established principles; the decision does not raise a question of law of general or public importance nor a principal issue affecting Treaty settlements requiring the Supreme Court's intervention, and obiter remarks left open by the Court of Appeal do not justify granting leave.
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.
24 May 2022

HUNTER v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2022] NZCA 205

Citation

[2022] NZCA 205
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because the High Court correctly concluded that the withdrawal of the earlier judicial review was irrelevant to the lawfulness of the panel's later decision, the panel properly considered and weighed expert evidence on heritage and amenity under the RMA (including s5 and s6(f)), its conclusion was open to it and not unreasonable, and there was no evidential basis for alleging bias or procedural unfairness.
12 Apr 2022

KENNEDY POINT BOATHARBOUR LTD v BARTON [2022] NZHC 737

Citation

[2022] NZHC 737
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the matters relied on (notably challenge to Hume and interpretation of s122 RMA) were not well suited to interlocutory appeal, the High Court was bound by Hume, and the interests of justice did not support further delay or appellate intervention at this interlocutory stage.