New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cost-benefit analysis

Legal area

Court

30 Oct 2017

NEW HEALTH NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v SOUTH TARANAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2017] NZSC 162

Citation

[2017] NZSC 162
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to adduce the TDB report was dismissed because the report was not fresh (it could have been commissioned with reasonable diligence before the High Court), it was untested and hypothetical so would not materially assist the s5 analysis, and its late introduction would prejudice the Council, thus failing established guidelines for admission of fresh evidence.
8 Jun 2010

MERIDIAN ENERGY LIMITED V CENTRAL OTAGO DISTRICT COUNCIL AND OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL HC DUN CIV 2009-412-000980

Citation

openlaw-0d1d9cfa_0b39_47e2_b0c1_a46a999517bb.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court declined to allow Federated Farmers to intervene because, although the Court has inherent jurisdiction to permit interveners, the proposed submissions would not assist the High Court in its primary task of reviewing the Environment Court's application of law to the specific facts and risked distracting the Court with hypotheticals and broad policy issues; accordingly leave to intervene was refused.
11 Aug 2008

POWERCO LIMITED V COMMERCE COMMISSION AND ANOR CA CA56/2008

Citation

openlaw-e38111ac_76dd_4046_b48d_34a0f4adaa92.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Section 52(b)(i) authorises the Commission and the Minister to include valuation of wealth transfers as benefits to acquirers in the statutory cost-benefit analysis; Part 4 does not require a positive Net Public Benefit before control may be declared; the Commission's use of a transfer cost ratio and its reasons were lawful and adequate, so the Commission's and Minister's decisions were lawful and the appeal is dismissed.
14 Mar 2008

MAJOR ELECTRICITY USERS' GROUP INCORPORATED V ELECTRICITY COMMISSION AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2007-485-2508

Citation

openlaw-52b106b5_2793_42c3_a601_07dc3c8f8685.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the Commission's interpretation of clause 4.1 was correct: the GIT must be applied in context with the Rules and long‑term modelling obligations and does not require the Commission to disaggregate hybrid proposals into minimum N‑1 works and other elements; the Commission's exercise of expert judgment in selecting alternative projects and in adopting a prudent 1-in-100 year HILP assumption was not unreasonable given the inadequate statistical data and the statutory emphasis on long‑term efficient planning, therefore MEUG's judicial review grounds fail and the approval is upheld.
9 Nov 2006

COMMERCE COMMISSION AND ANOR V POWERCO LIMITED AND ANOR CA CA123/06

Citation

openlaw-e1644512_36b8_4efc_87f1_a5e9a6d9ba57.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the Commission's appeal and held that Wild J applied an impermissibly low test for permitting cross-examination (focusing on what would 'assist' rather than what was 'necessary'); discovery of internal deliberative Commission material was correctly refused because the proper focus is the Commission's report; cross-examination of the experts and of the chairperson was not clearly necessary and was therefore wrongly permitted absent narrowly defined, particularized issues.

New Zealand Case Law

NEW HEALTH NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v SOUTH TARANAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2017] NZSC 162

MERIDIAN ENERGY LIMITED V CENTRAL OTAGO DISTRICT COUNCIL AND OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL HC DUN CIV 2009-412-000980

POWERCO LIMITED V COMMERCE COMMISSION AND ANOR CA CA56/2008

MAJOR ELECTRICITY USERS' GROUP INCORPORATED V ELECTRICITY COMMISSION AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2007-485-2508

COMMERCE COMMISSION AND ANOR V POWERCO LIMITED AND ANOR CA CA123/06