New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unitary plan process

Legal area

Court

17 Feb 2020

BELGIORNO-NETTIS v AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL [2020] NZHC [183]

Citation

BELGIORNO-NETTIS v AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL [2020] NZHC [183]
Court

High Court

Plaintiff is entitled to costs and disbursements only in respect of the High Court judicial review proceedings, calculated on a 2B basis at a daily recovery rate of $2,230, with costs for the appeal to lie where they fall; Housing New Zealand Corporation must contribute one third of the scale costs and Auckland Council two thirds; specific time allocations in the costs schedule are adjusted (remove step 24, increase step 22 from 0.6 to 1.0 day, reduce step 36 to 1.0 day), resulting in a costs award of $43,485 and disbursements of $3,880 (total $47,365) with Auckland Council liable for $31,576…
2 May 2018

NORTH EASTERN INVESTMENTS LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 916

Citation

[2018] NZHC 916
Court

High Court

Summons for the planner's report was not invalid in substance and, even if technically defective, the report was properly before the Panel; reliance on that material was not unfair given parties' responsibilities to monitor materials and the Panel's procedures; the Panel's zoning and precinct recommendations were rational and supported by evidence and proper consideration; the Council was not required to reconsider post-Panel Environment Court decisions when adopting recommendations; and transferring the MCI from a non-statutory to a control layer was within scope and supported by the plan co…
19 Mar 2018

BELGIORNO-NETTIS v AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL [2018] NZHC 459

Citation

(2018)20 ELRNZ 335
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal under ss66/67 is not excluded by the LGATPA; the Act does not contain clear words or necessary implication to abrogate the leave regime. However the applicant failed to show the proposed appeal raised a question of law capable of bona fide serious argument or matters of sufficient public or private importance to outweigh cost and delay; accordingly leave to appeal is refused. The Panel was entitled to group submissions and provide high‑level reasons where appropriate and the Court found the Panel's and Council's reasons were sufficiently clear in context.
11 Oct 2017

HOLLANDER v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 2487

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2487
Court

High Court

The Panel acted within its statutory mandate to consider rezoning on a grouped, region‑wide basis and provided adequate high‑level reasons tailored to that process; the Panel's Mixed Rural recommendation was reasonably open on the evidence in light of its Rural Urban Boundary and capacity findings, the Council lawfully accepted the recommendation, and the appellant's legal challenges fail; appeal dismissed.
16 Jun 2017

MAN OʼWAR FARM LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 1349

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1349
Court

High Court

The impugned phrase is ambiguous and creates legal uncertainty such that it is unlawful; the appeal is allowed, the words are struck down / amended provisionally, but because the changes are substantive and affect numerous parties the matter is remitted to Auckland Council to notify affected submitters and allow appeals to the Environment Court rather than the Court finalising permanent plan wording.
8 Mar 2017

STRAND HOLDINGS LIMITED v THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL [2017] NZHC 371

Citation

[2017] NZHC 371
Court

High Court

The IHP recommendation to relocate the Dilworth Terraces View Protection Plane was outside the scope of submissions and the Auckland Council's decision to adopt that recommendation amounted to adopting a recommendation beyond the scope for the purposes of s156(3)(b) of the Act; the appropriate remedy is declaratory relief and permission for SHL to lodge an appeal to the Environment Court within a limited time frame.

New Zealand Case Law

BELGIORNO-NETTIS v AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL [2020] NZHC [183]

NORTH EASTERN INVESTMENTS LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 916

BELGIORNO-NETTIS v AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL [2018] NZHC 459

HOLLANDER v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 2487

MAN OʼWAR FARM LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 1349

STRAND HOLDINGS LIMITED v THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL [2017] NZHC 371