New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cumulative effects

Legal area

Court

8 Sept 2022

IAN WALLACE LYSAGHT AND ADRIANNE JUNE LYSAGHT v WHAKATĀNE DISTRICT COUNCIL [2022] NZCA 423

Citation

[2022] NZCA 423
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal: the council lawfully limited its assessment to r13.4.7.1 matters and there was adequate information and analysis in the Report to conclude the adverse effects on the appellants were less than minor for notification purposes; the condition precedent requiring road works is lawful because the consent does not authorise works on third-party land without agreement or separate statutory authority, so the appellants were not 'affected persons' under s95E RMA.
6 Aug 2019

AUCKLAND COUNCIL v CABRA RURAL DEVELOPMENTS LTD [2019] NZHC 1892

Citation

(2019) 21 ELRNZ 185
Court

High Court

The High Court held that the Environment Court committed legal error by failing to consider and give effect to NZCPS Policies 13 and 15 and by failing to give proper effect to relevant RPS provisions, and by misapplying activity-status principles under the RMA and the AUP; those errors were material and required the Environment Court's decision to be set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration. The Court rejected the Council's challenge to the Environment Court's interpretation of Policy 11 and its treatment of cumulative effects as legal error.
30 Nov 2018

HAREWOOD GRAVELS COMPANY LIMITED v CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL & ANOR [2018] NZHC 3118

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3118
Court

High Court

The High Court found one discrete legal error in the Environment Court's reliance on its own experience to treat a 3 dB traffic‑noise increase as per se 'noticeable' absent supporting expert evidence, but held that error did not materially affect the outcome. The Environment Court's primary decision to decline consent was upheld: HGL failed to discharge the persuasive evidential burden under s104D to show adverse effects would be minor or that the proposal was not contrary to District Plan objectives and policies, given inadequate baseline evidence and credible findings of more‑than‑minor cum…
23 Dec 2016

CHALLENGER SCALLOP ENHANCEMENT COMPANY LTD v THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE MINISTRY OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2016] NZHC 3201

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3201
Court

High Court

The application for review was dismissed because the Director-General lawfully remade the aquaculture decision within the statutory remit of s40 using the best available evidence (including a peer‑reviewed Scallop Model alongside survey and site data), reasonably applied the five per cent UAE benchmark endorsed by higher courts, was not required to treat quota rights as a separate s40 matter, and the statutory s38 time limit did not invalidate the decision given the remittal and excluded information‑gathering periods.
17 Oct 2013

ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INC v BULLER DISTRICT COUNCIL & ANOR CA514/2013 [2013] NZCA 496

Citation

[2013] NZCA 496
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was refused because the Environment Court's determinative findings of fact—that the Solid Energy coal mining licence was not equivalent to a permitted activity or resource consent and that activation of the licence was speculative—were not amenable to appeal as questions of law; Hawthorn was not misapplied and its summary at [84] is not legislative; s3(f) does not alter the prior task of defining the relevant 'environment'; no question of law of sufficient public importance justified special leave.
12 Jul 2013

ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v BULLER DISTRICT COUNCIL AND WEST COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL [2013] NZHC 1766

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1766
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because there was no question of law of sufficient general or public importance suitable for the Court of Appeal: the Environment Court made a dispositive factual finding that the Sullivan Mine implementation was speculative which legally precluded cumulative effects analysis; Far North (Carrington) rendered the permitted baseline point largely otiose in this context; and the first-in-time policy remains the law, so no sufficient legal error was shown to warrant leave.
6 Jun 2013

ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v BULLER DISTRICT COUNCIL AND WEST COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL & Anor [2013] NZHC 1324

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1324
Court

High Court

The Environment Court did not err in declining cumulative-effects assessment: the Sullivan Mine was not part of the 'existing environment' because substantial additional RMA consents would be required and implementation was speculative; Hawthorn [84] was distinguished and not applicable by analogy to a coal mining licence in these factual circumstances; no legal error warranted overturning the decision; appeal dismissed.
10 Apr 2013

SMW CONSORTIUM (GOLDEN BAY) LIMITED v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF FISHERIES COA CA431/2011

Citation

COA CA431/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

Court upheld High Court: s40 confines matters decision-maker may consider; 'satisfied' requires positive certainty so where reasonable doubt exists a reservation is appropriate; a 5% average catch loss threshold was a permissible exercise of judgment in context; s40(d) requires assessment of exclusion of fishing by reference to the area likely to be occupied by aquaculture structures not simply the whole AMA area; s40(g) requires factual assessment of cumulative effects of previous aquaculture activities and allows consideration of other interim AMAs when multiple AMAs are decided concurrentl…
19 Sept 2011

STIRLING V CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL HC CHCH CIV-2010-409-002892

Citation

openlaw-e7209657_1ff5_4ed0_86ac_959d2ca6e528.pdf
Court

High Court

The Environment Court lawfully exercised its discretion under s104/s104B, gave greater weight to the City Plan's centres-based objectives and policies and to the real risk of precedent undermining the Plan, and properly declined consent despite findings of no significant immediate adverse effects from the single proposed development.
13 Jun 2011

MARLBOROUGH AQUACULTURE LIMITED AND ORS v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF FISHERIES HC WN CIV-2009-485-500

Citation

openlaw-9b2ef163_a7d2_41c7_bbec_f419f49cf904.pdf
Court

High Court

The Chief Executive's choice of a 5% average annual catch-loss threshold for identifying an undue adverse effect was a lawful exercise of judgment and the correct legal standard of 'satisfied' was applied; however the Aquaculture Decision was materially flawed because the Chief Executive misapplied the Scallop Model by using its outputs to rank subzones, by assessing interim AMAs by whole-area exclusion rather than by likely occupied area, and by treating other interim AMAs under simultaneous consideration as "previous aquaculture activities" for cumulative effects; pre-1992 marine farms that…