New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cost recovery

Legal area

Court

14 Dec 2021

WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL v LAKHI MAA LIMITED [2021] NZHC 3443

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3443
Court

High Court

Where the statutory preconditions in s 133AS are satisfied the District Court must grant the territorial authority's application authorising it to carry out seismic work without requiring prior particularisation of the specific works; requiring such particularisation would frustrate the statutory scheme, impede cost recovery and delay public safety outcomes, and an s 133AS order does not amount to a compensable taking of property.
6 Jun 2018

CRIBB AND STEVENS v FM CUSTODIANS LIMITED [2018] NZCA 183

Citation

(2018) 19 NZCPR 153
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the mortgagee became mortgagee in possession by operation of s 139(1)(c) backdated to its application, the removal of chattels before physical entry did not preclude a trespass claim by relation, and a mortgagee who is an involuntary bailee may lawfully and reasonably remove and store trespassing chattels and recover reasonable costs where fair notice was given and occupants failed to act.
11 Dec 2017

CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD v THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY [2017] NZHC 3076

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3076
Court

High Court

The 2014/15 appropriation to the EPA was a broad appropriation for regulatory functions and did not authorise Parliament to meet the costs of processing particular marine consent applications; accordingly the EPA was obliged under s 143(1) to recover costs from applicants and the challenged charging decisions were lawful; the application for judicial review was dismissed.
26 Apr 2017

PORIRUA CITY COUNCIL v ELLIS [2017] NZHC 784

Citation

[2017] NZHC 784
Court

High Court

The Environment Court correctly applied the statutory s 36 framework, made reasoned findings that parts of the Council's charges were unreasonable in the circumstances, and lawfully exercised its discretion under s 36(5) to remit a portion of the charges; no error of law was established on appeal.
2 Sept 2016

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY v CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LIMITED [2016] NZHC 2079

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2079
Court

High Court

A defendant may not successfully plead the illegality of EPA charges as a defence to a recovery action brought by the EPA in a summary judgment context; the appropriate route to challenge the lawfulness of the charges is by judicial review (with application for interim relief under s8 of the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 if suspension of enforcement is sought); accordingly the Court adjourned the EPA's summary judgment application to allow the defendant time to commence judicial review and seek interim relief rather than enter summary judgment immediately.
7 Aug 2014

REAY v THE MINISTER OF CONSERVATION [2014] NZHC 1844

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1844
Court

High Court

The Fisheries Act is not an exclusive code displacing the Conservation Act concession regime; a concession was required to carry on commercial eeling on conservation land and the two regimes operate in parallel with distinct purposes (utilisation v conservation). DOC lawfully considered effects on eel populations and conservation values when assessing concessions and did not impermissibly usurp Fisheries Minister functions, but DOC acted unlawfully by requiring separate conservancy applications and by use of a costs acknowledgement form that purported to secure an acknowledgement of liability…
16 Feb 2012

BODY CORPORATE 193764 V PRAKASH HC AK CIV-2010-004-000342

Citation

openlaw-9ab81c0d_4a3a_4711_8b05_8cd0df9041a4.pdf
Court

High Court

The resolutions passed at Body Corporate general meetings, together with s 34A of the Unit Titles Act, authorised the levies, transfer of the sinking fund to remediation, charging of 10% interest and recovery of collection and legal costs; the defendant's allegations are inconsistent with contemporaneous documentary evidence and do not raise a real defence, so summary judgment is appropriate.

New Zealand Case Law

WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL v LAKHI MAA LIMITED [2021] NZHC 3443

CRIBB AND STEVENS v FM CUSTODIANS LIMITED [2018] NZCA 183

CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD v THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY [2017] NZHC 3076

PORIRUA CITY COUNCIL v ELLIS [2017] NZHC 784

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY v CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LIMITED [2016] NZHC 2079

REAY v THE MINISTER OF CONSERVATION [2014] NZHC 1844

BODY CORPORATE 193764 V PRAKASH HC AK CIV-2010-004-000342