New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-notification of resource consent

Legal area

Court

12 Mar 2020

NORMAN v TŪPUNA MAUNGA O TĀMAKI MAKAURAU AUTHORITY [2020] NZHC 492

Citation

[2020] NZHC 492
Court

High Court

Leave to amend the statement of claim was granted because the proposed additional cause of action arose from the same factual matrix and had apparent merit, the short delay (approximately two months) and potential prejudice were not significant in the circumstances, and the interests of justice favored resolving all related issues in the same proceeding; strict timetabling was imposed to mitigate delay.
21 Jul 2016

FLYNN v SOUTH WAIRARAPA DISTRICT COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 1670

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1670
Court

High Court

Declarations were refused because the resource consents had been surrendered rendering the challenged decisions spent and hypothetical; formal proof was inappropriate when the Council maintained its defence and no contested argument had been advanced; issuing declarations risked wider impact on plan interpretation and would not serve sufficient public utility, so the plaintiff's applications for relief were dismissed.
13 Sept 2010

TE RUNANGA-A-IWI O NGATI KAHU V CARRINGTON FARMS LIMITED AND ORS HC WHA CIV-2010-488-000348

Citation

openlaw-7bc510e7_9a69_4cb9_ac6e_ce8e42aa7b76.pdf
Court

High Court

The interlocutory application for an interim order under s 8 was dismissed because the Court was not satisfied the order was reasonably necessary to preserve the applicant's position: alternative statutory and plan safeguards exist, the applicant had unexplained delay in bringing proceedings, Carrington was not actively implementing the consent pending the Environment Court decision, and success on the substantive review was unlikely to prevent what was permitted by the district plan; thus the Court declined to exercise its discretion to grant interim relief.
19 Mar 2008

FRIENDS OF WRIGHT STREET INCORPORATED V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2007-485-1880

Citation

openlaw-5b250648_a84f_4063_acba_c8a0659f2853.pdf
Court

High Court

The applicant succeeded against the Second Respondent because the consent was surrendered; costs were properly awarded against the Second Respondent on a Category 2B basis in the sum of $13,920 and the Court filing fee of $400 was allowed as disbursement; no costs were ordered against Wellington City Council because its decisions were not found unlawful and it did not concede error; claimed expert witness disbursements require oral argument to determine reasonableness and recoverability.
3 Apr 2006

MCVICKER & ANOR V VODAFONE (NZ) & ORS HC AK CIV 2005-404-180

Citation

openlaw-15468f0e_2625_4f09_b680_6214084dfe28.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs' private law claims were struck out because the council's express non-notification decision—that no persons were adversely affected—stands until set aside and thereby operates as a bar to the claims; additionally the Fair Trading Act claim fails because the consultant's communications to the consent authority were the exercise of statutory rights and not conduct "in trade," and the negligent misstatement claim fails because there was insufficient proximity/assumption of responsibility and no foreseeable reasonable reliance by the plaintiffs on the consultant rather than on the…
13 Feb 2006

SAWMILL WORKERS AGAINST POISONS INC AND ANOR V WHAKATANE DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ORS HC ROT CIV 2006-463-32

Citation

openlaw-c8e615cc_dddf_4445_8eb3_16eef68cb977.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that allegations of illegitimate sub-delegation and rubber-stamping were not established, but the Regional Council's non-notification decision was legally flawed on 23 December 2005 because the information before it was not adequately comprehensive or reliable concerning sample collection methodology and the risk of contaminant migration. Despite that error, the Court exercised its discretion to refuse relief because an independent expert (Dr Graham) concluded adverse effects were likely minor, monitoring and consent conditions mitigated risk, the activity was temporary, and gr…
27 Jan 2006

SAWMILLS WORKERS AGAINST POISONS INC AND ANOR V WHAKATANE DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ORS HC ROT CIV 2006-463-32

Citation

openlaw-c8293d8d_fe7b_4c34_8bcb_28708d9c493b.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found there was a seriously arguable case that the water discharge application ought to have been notified because the available scientific material (including the ESR draft) raised public health and environmental questions not clearly addressed by the council's documentation; discretionary considerations (potential public health impact) outweighed economic prejudice, so interim relief was necessary to preserve applicants' position by prohibiting further discharges under the permit pending full hearing; interim relief was declined in relation to the land use consent because that cha…

New Zealand Case Law

NORMAN v TŪPUNA MAUNGA O TĀMAKI MAKAURAU AUTHORITY [2020] NZHC 492

FLYNN v SOUTH WAIRARAPA DISTRICT COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 1670

TE RUNANGA-A-IWI O NGATI KAHU V CARRINGTON FARMS LIMITED AND ORS HC WHA CIV-2010-488-000348

FRIENDS OF WRIGHT STREET INCORPORATED V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2007-485-1880

MCVICKER & ANOR V VODAFONE (NZ) & ORS HC AK CIV 2005-404-180

SAWMILL WORKERS AGAINST POISONS INC AND ANOR V WHAKATANE DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ORS HC ROT CIV 2006-463-32

SAWMILLS WORKERS AGAINST POISONS INC AND ANOR V WHAKATANE DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ORS HC ROT CIV 2006-463-32