New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Notification of resource consent

Legal area

Court

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.
9 Dec 2019

KNOWLES v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 3227

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3227
Court

High Court

QLDC's non‑notification and substantive s104 decisions were invalid because the council failed to give adequate weight to the LDSR rezoning in the PDP when it was very likely to remain operative (CSF's appeal had low prospect of success); that failure to consider a relevant circumstance was a material reviewable error warranting quashing and remittal. Other alleged errors (including reference to a permitted 8m building on 3 York Street) were either not reviewable or not material to the outcome.
18 Nov 2019

SPEARGRASS HOLDINGS LTD & ORS v VAN BRANDENBURG & ORS [2019] NZCA 564

Citation

(2019) 21 ELRNZ 466
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal. Although the Council made a legal error in assessing the permitted baseline for RM130766, the High Court properly exercised its discretion to refuse judicial review relief because Speargrass unreasonably delayed bringing the claim and that delay caused real prejudice to the Flax Trust (wasted costs and reliance from subsequent proceedings); the substantive RMA issues about mound height and configuration should be addressed in the Environment Court or by fresh RMA process. The PLA claim for removal was refused because, while the as-built mound unduly affected re…
15 Mar 2019

ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 449

Citation

[2019] NZAR 587
Court

High Court

The Court held that Forest & Bird displaced the presumption against costs because it was reasonable to commence the judicial review, the respondents' subsequent actions (Council's admission of error and decision to abide; Resin & Wax's surrender of consents) rendered continuation unnecessary and vindicated the applicant, and therefore the First Respondent must contribute to the applicant's costs: 90 hours total awarded, calculated at $100 per hour for hours up to notification of surrender and $50 per hour for the remaining hours, and all claimed disbursements approved.
14 Dec 2017

MCMILLAN v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 3148

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3148
Court

High Court

Council's decision to process the application on a non-notified basis and grant consent was lawful: the omission in the applicant's AEE was effectively compensated by contemporaneous material (neighbour's planner's letter) that identified the neighbours' concerns; the Council independently and adequately applied the permitted baseline and assessed effects beyond it as less than minor; relevant ODP and PDP provisions and transport issues were considered; decision was not unreasonable; judicial review dismissed.
13 Dec 2016

MILLAR v ASHBURTON DISTRICT COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 3015

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3015
Court

High Court

The High Court held the substantive report signed by the delegated Commissioner included a reasoned notification decision; the Council considered relevant matters including storage area effects, applied the permitted baseline correctly, and reasonably concluded adverse effects on neighbours were less than minor; the notification and substantive tests were not impermissibly conflated; the judicial review application was dismissed.
20 Jul 2016

MAEHL v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 1655

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1655
Court

High Court

Limited, specific discovery was ordered as necessary for fair adjudication: the council must produce any further advice or documents demonstrating incorrect tree drip lines on or adjacent to 40 and 42 Paturoa Road, any further relevant documentation concerning the decision not to notify the 42 application (including landscape/ecological reports if any), and any undisclosed advice from its bio-security advisor; broader discovery requests were refused as onerous and unnecessary.
12 Feb 2016

MARCHE LIMITED & ANOR v AUCKLAND COUNCIL & ANOR [2016] NZHC 145

Citation

[2016] NZAR 542
Court

High Court

The notification decision was quashed because the Commissioners provided inadequate reasons, displayed a real risk of error of law in treating District Plan rule 4.3.2.6 as overriding s95A(4) and relied on a templated decision without demonstrating consideration of relevant factors; the procedural defect required quashing of the notification and consequent substantive decision and remitting the application for fresh consideration with proper reasons.
28 Jun 2013

COLLINS v NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL [2013] NZHC 1595

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1595
Court

High Court

The application for an extension of time to file and serve reply evidence was refused because the applicants failed to identify what strictly-in-reply evidence would be adduced and appeared to seek a merits review rather than a narrow judicial review; the established timetable was adequate and any further extension must be the subject of a formal application supported by a solicitor's affidavit specifying will-say evidence, its relevance and reasons it could not be obtained in time.
21 May 2013

CORO MAINSTREET (INCORPORATED) V THE THAMES-COROMANDEL DISTRICT COUNCIL HC HAM CIV-2012-419-001113

Citation

openlaw-07ee044a_79ca_4188_b1b9_174fe374096b.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the review: the officer had lawful delegation and validly made the non-notification decision; the council had adequate, independent and peer-reviewed traffic and heritage information to decide non-notification; rule 855.1.1 operates as an assessment criterion within the plan rather than an absolute mandatory setback standard; the activity status was correctly discretionary; no reviewable error, failure to take relevant considerations, nor manifest unreasonableness was shown, so the non-notification decision stands.