New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enforcement orders

Legal area

Court

30 Jun 2023

AUCKLAND COUNCIL v NOE [2023] NZHC 1674

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1674
Court

High Court

Order 5 did not constitute an express direction under s352(1AA) displacing the ordinary methods of service in s352(1); therefore the Council could lawfully serve by any method in s352(1) including delivery to the usual or last known residence under s352(1)(b)(ii); alternatively, if Order 5 were a s352(1AA) direction, delivery to the usual or last known residence coupled with the other steps taken satisfied the requirement to 'serve the Respondent direct'.
1 Nov 2021

DOKAD TRUSTEES LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 2930

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2930
Court

High Court

Leave to continue the proceedings was refused and the Court awarded costs to Auckland Council on a 2B basis in the sum of $4,166.63, to be paid by Mr Mawhinney and Dokad Trustees Limited jointly and severally; the merits of the underlying case were irrelevant to the costs decision, employing an in‑house lawyer does not preclude recovery of costs, and it was appropriate to exercise jurisdiction to order costs against Dokad given its direct interest in the leave application.
8 Oct 2021

WOOLLEY v FONTERRA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2690

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2690
Court

High Court

The Court found the Opus engineer's certificate dated 5 September 2014 did not satisfy the Environment Court enforcement order; accordingly plaintiff remained in breach of the order and underlying resource consent, Fonterra's continued suspension of milk collection was lawful and reasonable, and plaintiff's claimed losses were caused by his own unlawful conduct (milking in breach of orders) and therefore not recoverable; claim dismissed.
18 Aug 2021

WU v LI [2021] NZCA 389

Citation

[2021] NZCA 389
Court

Court of Appeal

The recall application was declined because the applicants failed to identify any very special reason or reasonably arguable error to justify recalling the Court's earlier judgment; their delay was unexplained and prejudiced the respondent, and they merely sought reconsideration on the same material.
6 Jul 2021

AUCKLAND COUNCIL v NZ FAIRY TERN CHARITABLE TRUST [2021] NZHC 1671

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1671
Court

High Court

The Environment Court was plainly wrong to decline costs because the Trust's proceedings against the Council were fundamentally misconceived, the Trust had been put on notice early that the Council was the wrong respondent, and the Trust's public interest motivation did not justify continuing misconceived litigation; accordingly an award of costs in favour of Auckland Council was appropriate.
19 May 2021

VORTAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v R [2021] NZCA 200

Citation

[2021] NZCA 200
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the Council's alleged unlawful discharge of stormwater was irrelevant to the defendants' guilt for constructing works in a floodable area and breaching abatement notices; s 83 RMA precludes collateral challenges to a district plan in prosecution proceedings; the trial judge did not err in excluding evidence or in directions to the jury; convictions therefore stand; the sentencing of Mr Ottaway contained an arithmetical error which the Court corrected and substituted fines totalling $24,750; enforcement order requiring removal of the retaining wall and earthworks is upheld.
24 Jul 2019

BAIGENT v TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 1750

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1750
Court

High Court

The High Court held the TRMP definition of 'naturally occurring wetland' properly includes areas formed by natural reversion and sedimentation, the Environment Court did not err in applying the ordinary meaning or in its factual findings, and the civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities sufficed to uphold enforcement orders requiring remediation.
17 Dec 2018

WOOLLEY v FONTERRA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP LTD [2018] NZHC 3352

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3352
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because Fonterra did not establish on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff's claim was hopeless; there were material factual issues to be tried, in particular whether Fonterra properly and reasonably exercised its contractual discretion in refusing to lift the suspension after receipt of the engineer's certificate.
23 Nov 2018

WALMSLEY ENTERPRISES LIMITED & ORS v AITCHISON [2018] NZHC 3071

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3071
Court

High Court

Recall dismissed because applicant mischaracterised the prior judgment; the impugned paragraphs accurately summarised the Environment Court's findings on jurisdictional issue under s 319(2)(b); the recall power is narrowly circumscribed and cannot be used to relitigate or recast arguments that should have been or were already considered; prior refusals to grant leave to appeal reinforce the need for finality.
10 Jul 2018

AITCHISON v THE WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 1674

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1674
Court

High Court

The High Court held there was no presumption shielding the Council from costs in these proceedings because the Council adopted an active, partisan position rather than a neutral primary-decision-maker role; the Council failed to discharge its enforcement/clarification responsibilities regarding an ambiguous district plan standard, forcing the Aitchisons to incur substantial and reasonably incurred costs; second counsel fees were justified; an elevated award of 60% of the successful parties' reasonable costs was appropriate and the private respondent (WEL) was ordered to pay $16,500 with the C…