New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Judicial review of council decisions

  • 30 Jun 2023

    KEIR v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 1658

    Citation
    (2023) 24 ELRNZ 886
    Court
    High Court

    The Council erred in law by treating the 2016 unimplemented subdivision consent as part of the receiving environment without properly assessing whether it was likely to be implemented and by discounting effects on the Keirs (notably loss of separate dwelling entitlement, imposition of specified building areas, interference with septic fields, and removal or delay of a properly engineered access) that were at least minor; accordingly the notification decision and the grant of the 2021 consent (and the related s223 approval) were unlawful and are quashed.

    • Notification of resource consent
    • Affected persons under s95e
    • Receiving environment and unimplemented consents
    • Subdivision consent
    • S104d threshold for non-complying activities
    • Judicial review of council decisions

  • 23 May 2017

    NGĀTI TAMA KI TE WAIPOUNAMU TRUST v TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 1081 [23 May 2017]

    Citation
    [2017] NZHC 1081
    Court
    High Court

    The Council materially erred by failing to determine whether substantial progress or effort had in fact been and continues to be made under s125(1A)(b)(i) and by relying on an incorrect factual premise about hydraulic connectivity which led to an inadequate analysis of whether Ngāti Tama 'may be adversely affected' under s125(1A)(b)(ii); those failures required setting aside the extension decision and remitting the application for proper reconsideration.

    • S125 lapse and extension
    • Judicial review of council decisions
    • Affected persons and written approvals
    • Statutory acknowledgements and cultural effects
    • Planning policy assessment

  • 10 Mar 2011

    J A EDWARDS V WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL HC WN CIV 2010-485-2192

    Citation
    openlaw-0e4f100c_9586_4fcb_8bdb_addbed73fe88.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The amended statement of claim failed to meet the basic requirements of pleading because it did not identify the specific decisions said to be unauthorised or invalid or the grounds on which they were challenged; because a valid claim could not be ruled out but the pleading was fundamentally defective, the appropriate remedy was to stay the proceedings and require leave of a Judge before any further statement of claim is filed.

    • Pleading requirements
    • Strike out
    • Stay of proceedings
    • Leave to file further pleadings
    • Judicial review of council decisions
    • Interim relief

  • 12 Mar 2009

    ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NZ INC V KAPITI COAST DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ANOR CA CA695/07

    Citation
    openlaw-401bfbde_c5ee_47c1_886a_e68c2fb64761.pdf
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    Sections 94A(c) and 104(3)(b) require a purposive, contextual approach: a consenting person's written approval allows the authority to disregard effects personal to that person but does not authorise ignoring wider effects on land of significant public or environmental importance; on the facts the council did consider effects on the DOC reserve and the decision not to notify was lawful

    • Public notification of resource consents
    • Written approval under s94a(c)
    • Statutory interpretation
    • Judicial review of council decisions