New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Mitigation measures

Legal area

Court

3 May 2016

SPLICE FRUIT LTD v THE NEW ZEALAND KIWIFRUIT BOARD [2016] NZHC 864

Citation

[2016] NZAR 680
Court

High Court

Court held Board did not unlawfully place an onus on applicants and reg 8 mitigation purposes are not mandatory considerations for every Part 4 collaborative marketing decision; however applicants had a legitimate expectation of a review/appeal process as set out in the Information Document and that process was lawful, requiring remittal for reconsideration consistent with the Court's statutory interpretation and administrative law analysis.
30 Aug 2007

NGATI RANGI TRUST& ORS V GENESIS POWER LTD AND ANOR CA CA275/07

Citation

openlaw-7671d0ff_e3f5_4d8c_8ba8_01abd1c1adca.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal granted leave because there were two discrete questions of law of public importance suitable for second appeal: whether an evidential onus rested on the applicants to demonstrate appropriate mitigation measures, and whether the Environment Court's 'meeting of the minds' construct was directed to the RMA purpose of sustainable management. The Court did not decide the substantive issues but reframed those legal questions for appeal and awarded costs on the leave application.