New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Offer-back provisions

Legal area

Court

20 Feb 2020

ROBERT MATTHEW URLICH v ATTORNEY_x001e_GENERAL [2020] NZSC 11

Citation

[2020] NZSC 11
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the criteria for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court were not met; the Associate Judge's conclusion that the applicant was not a successor under s 40(5) PWA (and therefore had no reasonably arguable caveatable interest) stands for the purposes of the leave application and the matter should proceed through the Court of Appeal rather than by leapfrog appeal to this Court.
6 Sept 2019

COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES LTD v HUTT CITY COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 2243

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2243
Court

High Court

The Court held the Local Government Act 2002 confers a stand-alone, broader power on local authorities to compulsorily acquire land for purposes including urban renewal, subject to the PWA procedures for notice and compensation; the s 23 notices in this case provided a sufficiently adequate general description; the other challenges failed; the judicial review application was dismissed.
4 May 2018

VOGEL v COMMISSIONER OF CROWN LANDS [2018] NZHC 953

Citation

[2018] NZHC 953
Court

High Court

Court held Hansen Report materially erred in law by construing 'hardship' in s 54(1)(f) to require 'actual detriment' (loss of property or direct financial loss), thereby excluding emotional and other non‑tangible harms which can be relevant; the report's framing of 'equitable' in equitable‑remedy terms was unhelpful but not fatal; the Commissioner does not have power to effect an unlawful gift of high‑value Crown land (ie transfer of $5–6m property for cost of improvements $415,000) under s 54; the Deputy Chief Executive's decision (which adopted the report) was set aside and remitted for re…
17 Jul 2008

TE RUNANGA O NGATI AWA V ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2006-485-1025

Citation

openlaw-557dcad7_0e9f_4163_8b7c_90d96068842b.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court concluded that once the Whakatane District Council had unequivocally declined to require the land under s50 and the s40(1)(a) surplus event remained, s50 could have no potential application; LINZ's reconsideration failed to properly apply s40(1)(b) and did not adequately consider Ngati Awa's Treaty/deed interests, so the decision dated 11 August 2005 to transfer the land under s50 was unlawful and set aside.
2 Mar 2005

HOOD V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOR CA CA16/04

Citation

openlaw-4da2f93d_0eef_49a8_af6b_5810101e6375.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that, under the 1928 Act/1914 Education Act definition, a standalone Playcentre did not fall within the 'public school' purpose for which the Hood land was originally taken and that a standalone Playcentre was not within the 1981 Act's definition of 'essential work'; however, pre-1981 arrangements between the Crown and the Council to vest the entire old school site for reserve/community purposes once no longer required for education had accrued and made it unfair and unreasonable to require the Crown to offer the land back under s40(2), so the appellants' claim failed and the a…

New Zealand Case Law

ROBERT MATTHEW URLICH v ATTORNEY_x001e_GENERAL [2020] NZSC 11

COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES LTD v HUTT CITY COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 2243

VOGEL v COMMISSIONER OF CROWN LANDS [2018] NZHC 953

TE RUNANGA O NGATI AWA V ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2006-485-1025

HOOD V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOR CA CA16/04