29 Jun 2023
The Opus Certificate did not unambiguously satisfy the Environment Court's Enforcement Order (including the additional unqualified requirement in B(2)); Ruling 3 was not a judgment in rem binding Fonterra; Fonterra was justified in maintaining suspension while the regulator contested compliance and thus did not breach the contract or any implied term; appeal dismissed.
1 Oct 2020
The applicants achieved the object of the enforcement application and succeeded; the application was not unnecessary because the defendant failed to provide particulars by the agreed date and delayed further, therefore the defendant must pay costs; Band B was appropriate for assessment.
14 Aug 2019
The appellants abandoned an appeal that had no reasonable prospect of success and the respondents had substantively succeeded; the costs claimed were reasonable and the specific preparatory steps recoverable, and any public interest allowance had been accommodated in the Environment Court, so the full costs claimed ($7,582) were awarded.
10 Apr 2014
The application was struck out because it was filed outside the 21 day time limit in s162(2) and ACC did not waive the time limit, leaving the District Court without jurisdiction to entertain the late leave application.
5 Oct 2012
Application to adduce new expert evidence was dismissed because there were no special reasons under r 20.16 to admit fresh evidence in an appeal confined to questions of law; moreover the Environment Court's finding that elements of the altar were fixed to a foundation was supported by evidence and not amenable to reversal on a no‑evidence basis.
21 Oct 2011
The interim application was dismissed because applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient strength in the substantive existing use challenge for the gum trees; the proposed expert evidence was not new as it could have been obtained with reasonable diligence so s294 relief was not established; and discretionary factors including delay, absence of appeal, and public safety concerns rendered an interim order unnecessary to preserve the applicants' position.
31 Oct 2008
A landowner may carry out earthworks that are reasonably necessary to construct an internal boundary fence without a resource consent; benching works must be assessed against an objective 'reasonably necessary' standard and are not protected by s10 where there is no evidence they are of the same character, intensity and scale as historical works.
29 May 2006
The Environment Court erred by failing to consider the permitted baseline established by the 1983 resource consent; appellants were not acting in accordance with that consent (they kept 135 dogs), so s319(2) did not preclude enforcement; s16 applies to the nature, frequency and duration of noise as well as level and may require reduction below plan limits; accordingly the enforcement remedy should have been confined to the permissions of the 1983 consent (reduce to 40 dogs) and the indemnity costs award was legally unsustainable and was set aside in favour of party-party costs.