New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Development contributions

Legal area

Court

31 Jan 2023

EVERTON HEIGHTS LIMITED v HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 40

Citation

[2023] NZHC 40
Court

High Court

The Court held the Council materially erred in law by purporting to abandon the 2016/2017 DC Policy outcome after Everton lodged its resource consent application: s198(2A) LGA read with clause 11.8 of the 2016/2017 DC Policy required Everton's development contributions to be calculated under the policy in force when the application was submitted, and the Council's 4 July 2019 action unlawfully attempted to remake that decision; accordingly the Court declared that decision unlawful and ordered the Council to apply the 2016/2017 DC Policy to Everton's application. The Court found Everton had a…
27 Aug 2021

AGPAC LTD v HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 2222

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2222
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed the application. It held HCC's development contributions policies and decisions were, overall, lawful and within the statutory framework: the materiality limb and five HUE filter for remissions are permissible policy choices, site credits are acceptable and HCC removed the absolute no-refund provision so no general relief was required, inclusion of canopies in GFA is a permissible proxy for on-site activity, expenditure on plans/models may be treated as capital expenditure attributable to infrastructure delivery and therefore recoverable, using bedroom-based proxies for re…
16 Aug 2019

HARVEY v TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 2025

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2025
Court

High Court

The appellant was personally liable because he signed application forms containing an express undertaking to pay the water connection costs, the Council was entitled to rely on that signed representation, s 252 LGA 2002 does not restrict recovery to the registered proprietor alone, and substance prevailed over form given the appellant's control and conduct.
19 Nov 2018

PALMERSTON NORTH INDUSTRAL & RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v _x000b_PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 2985

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2985
Court

High Court

Section 252 LGA makes development contributions recoverable as a debt; the levy in issue related to the completed warehouse development (not the unimplemented subdivision); the applicant prosecuted the objection in its own name and is estopped from denying liability; therefore the statutory demand is not set aside.
25 May 2016

BEAUMONT TRADING COMPANY LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2016] NZCA 223

Citation

[2016] NZCA 223
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that 'development' as defined in s197 requires the consent to which s198 is tied to generate the demand for reserves; because the 2013 unit title subdivision did not itself generate additional demand for reserves, the Council could not lawfully levy the open space land acquisition contribution based on the earlier hotel construction, and the 2013 assessment was set aside.
25 Nov 2014

BEAUMONT TRADING CO LTD v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 2954

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2954
Court

High Court

A territorial authority lawfully may levy development contributions at the time a subdivision consent is granted even if the physical construction predated that consent, because s198(1) requires the contribution to be required when a consent is granted "for" a development and s199 concerns demand generated by the development rather than an immediate temporal nexus; the Council's policy permits calculation on a subsequent application and the assessment was not irrational.
30 Jul 2009

TAUPO DISTRICT COUNCIL V MOUNTAIN VIEW NURSERY LIMITED HC ROT CIV 2008-463-000551

Citation

openlaw-04a2cb93_5bf8_49f8_9266_8d4e9c6428e1.pdf
Court

High Court

Although the Deed of Arrangement bore signatures and likely created an enforceable contractual obligation, genuine and material factual disputes exist about the circumstances of execution, calculation of the claimed sums, possible offsets for works performed and misapplication of the Council's policy; those disputes and credibility issues make summary judgment inappropriate and warrant a full trial.
20 Jan 2009

CARMEL COLLEGE AUCKLAND LIMITED AND ANOR V NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2007-404-005894

Citation

openlaw-10c86977_91df_4add_8665_598965c37f8d.pdf
Court

High Court

The Council's retrospective change of development contribution policy removed the practical basis of the plaintiffs' challenge so the plaintiffs obtained the relief they sought; therefore the presumption in r476C is displaced and the plaintiffs are entitled to costs on the standard scale with no reduction under r48D.
1 Sept 2008

DOMAIN NOMINEE LTD V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2007-404-2465

Citation

openlaw-edd7e3b2_a51e_4e99_a7b3_c16b75a6be28.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 200(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 must be construed, in context and purposively, to prevent a territorial authority from imposing both a financial contribution under the RMA and a development contribution under the Act for the same development and for the same purpose; the Council's imposition of a 'top up' development contribution in those circumstances was an error of law and was quashed.
12 Feb 2008

BALLINTOY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED AND ANOR V TAURANGA CITY COUNCIL HC TAU CIV 2007-470-410

Citation

openlaw-19cefc25_1abd_49f0_aecf_efa3a9cb60f1.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 2.1.13(b) fixes the contribution amount as at 30 June of the calendar year for applications accepted as complete by that date; clause 2.1.13(c) only prescribes the timing window within which payment must be made to secure that fixed amount and does not require issuance of a s224 certificate by the deadline to fix the amount, therefore the plaintiffs' tender on 30 March 2007 of the June 2006 rate satisfied the policy and Council was obliged to accept it.