New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Appeal on point of law

  • 9 Feb 2018

    SAMSON CORPORATION LTD & OR v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 97

    Citation
    [2018] NZHC 97
    Court
    High Court

    The Panel had admissible evidence and a rational basis for concluding the Special Character Overlay and the Residential – Single House Zone should apply to the site; the Panel's general approach to overlays did not amount to a rule that overlays must be disregarded when zoning and did not preclude the Panel from applying the Single House Zone here; therefore the Panel's recommendation and the Council's acceptance were options open on the evidence and did not amount to an error of law, so the appeal is dismissed.

    • Zoning
    • Unitary plan
    • Special character overlay
    • Appeal on point of law
    • Judicial review standards

  • 17 Sept 2015

    AUCKLAND COUNCIL v 184 MARAETAI ROAD LTD [2015] NZHC 2254

    Citation
    [2015] NZHC 2254
    Court
    High Court

    The Environment Court applied the wrong legal test by elevating an evaluative benefits/burdens and consequences inquiry over the statutory factual enquiry into whether, before the lapse date, the consent had been given effect to across the integrated CDC; it also failed to consider relevant factors about steps taken for the other parcels, which was a material legal error warranting remittal to the Environment Court for reconsideration under the correct test.

    • S125 lapsing of consent
    • Concept development consent
    • Statutory interpretation
    • Declaration
    • Appeal on point of law

  • 8 Mar 2013

    RE GREENPEACE OF NEW ZEALAND INC SC 97/2012

    Citation
    SC 97/2012
    Court
    Supreme Court

    Leave to appeal was granted to determine whether the Court of Appeal's views in paragraphs [55]–[68] and [96]–[97] were correct; the Supreme Court did not decide the substantive issues but permitted an appeal limited to that question.

    • Charitable status
    • Public benefit
    • Appeal on point of law
    • Leave to appeal

  • 30 Apr 2010

    CH AND DL PROPERTIES LTD V CHRISTCHURCH DISTRICT LICENSING AGENCY AND ORS HC CHCH CIV 2009-409-002906

    Citation
    openlaw-a8bdc813_3164_4b4f_9b21_2a23de1fcda5.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The court exercised its discretion to admit general legislative materials and national statistical data as background/contextual material (a Brandeis‑type approach) but refused to admit the proposed affidavits that could and should have been placed before the Licensing Authority because permitting them would convert the appeal into a merits review and require factual findings and cross-examination; Rule 20.16 allows evidence on appeals on points of law only in very special circumstances, which were not made out for the affidavits here.

    • Admission of further evidence on appeal
    • Appeal on point of law
    • Interpretation of 'grocery store' under s36(1)(d)(ii)
    • High court rule 20.16
    • Judicial notice/brandeis briefs

  • 11 May 2009

    BAYSWATER MARINA HOLDINGS LIMITED V NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2009-404-1730

    Citation
    openlaw-f00b8deb_ba2a_4334_b12f_f5700f8604bb.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    Rule 7.5 and Schedule 6 permit the parties to prepare and file a common bundle for Environment Court appeals and do not require a s303 order to include documents in the parties' possession; s303 remains the route when documents only exist in the Environment Court's possession and are not held by the parties; inclusion of irrelevant material is to be policed by costs rather than by preliminary s303 applications.

    • Appeal on point of law
    • S303 rma production of documents
    • High court rules r7.5 and schedule 6
    • Bundling of evidence and briefs

  • 19 Mar 2009

    FOSTER V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT HC AK CIV 2008-485-2395

    Citation
    openlaw-bcc0777f_8ad8_4527_adc0_9514840a1d1c.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    Clothing needs caused by ordinary wear and tear did not constitute an unforeseen emergency or 'special circumstances' causing 'serious hardship' under the Special Needs Grants Program; therefore the Authority did not err in law in upholding the administrative decision to provide a recoverable advance under s 82(6) rather than a non-recoverable special needs grant.

    • Special needs grants program
    • Recoverable advance of benefit
    • Emergency threshold
    • Interpretation of ministerial program
    • Appeal on point of law

  • 19 Feb 2009

    JACKSON V PHILLIPS HC NAP CIV 2008-441-663

    Citation
    openlaw-2cab3bb2_803f_42ae_86ea_49f7c903d763.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The High Court held the Environment Court did not err in principle in awarding indemnity costs because it lawfully exercised the wide discretion under s285 RMA, properly applied DFC/Bielby factors (notably the unreasonable refusal to settle in the face of persuasive evidence that the applicant's case lacked merit), and an appeal on a point of law could not overturn a discretionary costs exercise absent an identified legal error.

    • Indemnity costs
    • Enforcement orders (s314 rma)
    • Causation of land failure
    • Settlement offers/calderbank-type offers
    • Appeal on point of law

  • 7 Mar 2008

    FRIENDS OF PAKIRI BEACH V AUCKLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2006-404-003546

    Citation
    openlaw-91238f54_474c_41b2_a719_3dae51f2c23b.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    Second respondents are entitled to costs on the 2B scale for the strike‑out application as detailed in Schedule A (total $5,280); no reduction is warranted for partial success or alleged inclusion of s303/unrelated matters; costs for only one counsel allowed; and a conditional repayment order under Rule 48E is declined because potential appellate outcomes are too variable.

    • Strike out application
    • Interlocutory application
    • Costs assessment
    • Rule 48e repayment
    • Appeal on point of law

  • 15 May 2007

    PLAIN SENSE (TAIERI PLAINS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SOCIETY) INC V DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL AND ORS HC DUN CIV 2006-412-000903

    Citation
    openlaw-01524349_eb9d_4910_bca2_a235a677251b.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The High Court held the Environment Court committed a procedural error of natural justice by either overlooking the parties' agreed statement that East A contained high class soils or failing to give parties opportunity to address the apparent contradiction; s299 includes procedural points of law; accordingly the Environment Court's interim decision insofar as it related to East A was set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration on the basis that East A mostly contains high class soils as defined in the District Plan.

    • Zoning
    • High class soils
    • Procedural fairness
    • Appeal on point of law
    • Remittal

  • 2 Mar 2007

    FRIENDS OF PAKIRI BEACH V AUCKLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2006-404-3546

    Citation
    openlaw-f77eefee_370f_45db_ba60_8fa6ad7119f2.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    Most of the amended grounds attack factual findings and the weighing of competing expert evidence, which do not disclose questions of law and are therefore plainly untenable and struck out; however, the discrete issue whether scientific evidence was given on rip current formation raised a question of law and was preserved; the s303 record application is to be constrained to matters relevant to the remaining legal issues and counsel must confer on scope.

    • Appeal on point of law
    • Strike out
    • Natural justice
    • Expert evidence
    • Coastal permits
    • Sand extraction