New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 32 analysis

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2020

OCEANA GOLD (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED v OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 436

Citation

[2020] NZHC 436
Court

High Court

The Court allowed the appeal in part and quashed the Environment Court's confirmation of policy 5.4.6(c) insofar as it required definitions 'as defined in reports published prior to 14 January 2019 under the NZTCS' because NZTCS contains no definitional formulation for 'rare or vulnerable species' and the wording was unworkable; the matter is remitted for amendment to provide a workable definition. All other grounds of appeal were dismissed: the Environment Court did not breach natural justice by referring to BBOP and RMLA materials used as background consistent with evidence, its inclusion o…
30 Oct 2009

POWER AND THE STERLING TRUST V WHAKATANE DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ORS HC TAU CIV 2008-470-456

Citation

openlaw-44f3cc63_74db_4fd7_9112_b5437814cd46.pdf
Court

High Court

The Environment Court did not err in declining jurisdiction over the Alternative because it constituted a new planning technique not fairly and reasonably raised by the submissions or references, risked affecting interests of persons not before the Court and had wider precedent implications; omission to expressly address s 293 was not unlawful given the discretionary nature of that power and the weakness of any s 293 case; only corrective variation was warranted substituting a seven metre frontage limit for the six metre figure; otherwise the Environment Court's decision stands.
20 Dec 2007

CONTACT ENERGY LIMITED V WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2006-404-007655

Citation

openlaw-62d45a44_a244_4657_90c0_0df9ca8264e9.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Environment Court did not err in law: it lawfully exercised its specialist judgment, had adequate evidential basis to adopt the 15,000 tpd daily threshold and 2.5 million tpy annual cap, conducted an appropriate s 32 evaluation in context without needing exhaustive quantification, and reasonably accommodated short-term impracticable reinjection activities; the appeal is dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

OCEANA GOLD (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED v OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 436

POWER AND THE STERLING TRUST V WHAKATANE DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ORS HC TAU CIV 2008-470-456

CONTACT ENERGY LIMITED V WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2006-404-007655