17 May 2022
CABLE BAY WINE LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2022] NZCA 189
- Citation
- [2022] NZCA 189
- Court
- Court of Appeal
Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the proposed legal questions were either premised on an incorrect factual-legal proposition (that the 2006 consent authorised the lawn use) or were merits questions improperly framed as questions of law; the High Court correctly held the 2006 consent did not authorise the lawn activity (it was a permitted activity) and s10, not the 2006 consent, is the statutory route for protection of permitted uses against later plan changes; the proposed issues were not of general or public importance nor proper questions of law for a second appeal.