New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Resource consent conditions

Legal area

Court

31 Oct 2022

TE KOROWAI O NGARUAHINE TRUST v HIRINGA ENERGY LIMITED AND BALLANCE AGRI-NUTRIENTS LIMITED [2022] NZHC 2810

Citation

(2022) 24 ELRNZ269
Court

High Court

The Panel acted within the FTCA framework and applied the Treaty clause s 6 consistently: it properly engaged with and relied upon CIAs, consultation and evidence, and imposed detailed conditions (including limits on turbine numbers, a decommissioning plan prepared with iwi/hapū, monitoring, consultative group membership and a transition reporting and review mechanism) that adequately addressed cultural and environmental concerns; downstream urea effects were considered but not found to have sufficient nexus or weight to defeat the proposal given the intended transition and monitoring; no leg…
8 Sept 2022

IAN WALLACE LYSAGHT AND ADRIANNE JUNE LYSAGHT v WHAKATĀNE DISTRICT COUNCIL [2022] NZCA 423

Citation

[2022] NZCA 423
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal: the council lawfully limited its assessment to r13.4.7.1 matters and there was adequate information and analysis in the Report to conclude the adverse effects on the appellants were less than minor for notification purposes; the condition precedent requiring road works is lawful because the consent does not authorise works on third-party land without agreement or separate statutory authority, so the appellants were not 'affected persons' under s95E RMA.
3 Dec 2021

AUCKLAND COUNCIL v CABLE BAY WINE LTD [2021] NZHC 3290

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3290
Court

High Court

The High Court held it had jurisdiction under s 296(3)(b) because the District Court's preliminary ruling operated as a dismissal/determination of the charges; the District Court erred by failing to purposively interpret 'another lot' and by conflating interpretation with burden — 85 Church Bay Road is 'another lot' for condition 25 and the measurements taken there could support the March and June 2018 charges; the District Court also erred in holding that the absence of the sound measurement file necessarily prevented application of a SAC (+5dB) where unchallenged evidence supported that adj…
21 Oct 2020

NGĀTI MARU TRUST v NGĀTI WHĀTUA ŌRĀKEI WHAIA MAIA LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2768 [21 October 2020]

Citation

(2020) 22 ELRNZ110
Court

High Court

The High Court held that while resource management decision-makers under the RMA do not have jurisdiction to confer, declare or affirm tikanga-based rights or primary mana whenua status as a matter of State law, consent authorities including the Environment Court do have jurisdiction to make evidential findings about the relative strength of iwi/hapū relationships where such findings are necessary and relevant to assessing cultural effects and to the formulation of lawful consent conditions; however such claims must be clearly grounded and defined according to tikanga and linked to specific r…
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…
10 Apr 2019

SALIS v FILLEUL APARTMENTS JV LTD [2019] NZHC 766

Citation

[2019] NZHC 766
Court

High Court

The appeal was rendered largely otiose because the construction work requiring access was effectively complete; pragmatic and principled exercise of discretion under ss319-320 allows entry only where just and equitable and minimally intrusive, but given intervening events substantive relief was futile; accordingly the Court quashed the District Court costs order and directed costs in both courts to lie where they fall while otherwise dismissing the appeal.
9 Nov 2018

Hugh Green Limited v Auckland Council [2018] NZHC 2916

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2916
Court

High Court

The Court held there was no clear and unambiguous undertaking by the Council that it would acquire Lots 800 and 801 and HGL did not establish a substantive legitimate expectation or a contractual obligation to compel acquisition; however the Acquisition Committee's decision was set aside because it failed to take into account mandatory relevant considerations—notably the District Plan's open space policies applicable to Flat Bush—and the matter was remitted to the Committee to reconsider taking those policies into account.
4 Mar 2016

CARGILL CONTRACTING LTD v HEYWARD HOLDINGS LTD [2016] NZHC 351

Citation

[2016] NZHC 351
Court

High Court

Heyward failed to establish a strong prima facie case of a genuine dispute on substantial grounds because the council had certified compliance, Heyward instructed only minimum standards, the remediation quote post-dated the demand and after Heyward had sold the land, and the valuation evidence was unsworn and speculative; accordingly the stay and restraint were refused and the statutory demand remains effective subject to a short extension of time to comply.
20 Nov 2015

HSW HOLDINGS LIMITED v CATHRO & Anor [2015] NZHC 2895

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2895
Court

High Court

The caveat was sustained because HSW demonstrated an arguable beneficial interest under the sale agreement; the Cathros failed to establish an obvious implied term or clear cancellation of the contract; the caveat remains but is conditional on HSW diligently prosecuting District Court proceedings for specific performance.
12 Dec 2014

HAWKE'S BAY and EASTERN FISH AND GAME COUNCILS v HAWKE'S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 3191

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3191
Court

High Court

The Board committed errors of law by inserting a factual deeming provision into Rule TT1(j) without re-consulting parties when the amendment was a material change from the draft; the deeming provision created a factual fiction that would undermine the Regional Council's statutory ability to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects (s5(2)(c)) and impeded giving proper effect to the NPSFM; the Board must reconvene to reconsider and redraft Rule TT1(j) (and consequential consent conditions) and must invite submissions, applying NPSFM 2014 and avoiding factual fictions.