New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Plan variation

Legal area

Court

1 Dec 2015

ELLESMERE SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE INCORPORATED v CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 3011

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3011
Court

High Court

The Court granted the parties' consent to amend Variation 1 because the removal of the 15 kg/ha/yr threshold was outside the submissions and therefore an error of law, the proposed amendment restoring the threshold was within the scope of the appeals, consistent with the ECan Act and the RMA, and the Court had jurisdiction under r 20.19 and ss 300-307 to make the amendment rather than order a rehearing.
2 Aug 2013

PROTECT PAUANUI INC v THE THAMES COROMANDEL DISTRICT Council & ANOR [2013] NZHC 1944

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1944
Court

High Court

The application is dismissed because (1) the alleged defects relate to procedural matters governed by Schedule 1 and are conclusively presumed to have been complied with by virtue of s 83 RMA absent a timely s 316(3) enforcement application, (2) the Council did not make a reviewable error in notification or in accepting the Club's submission, and (3) allegations of bias are not established; alternatively relief would be refused for inordinate delay and prejudice to the Club.
21 Apr 2011

OREWA LAND LIMITED V AUCKLAND COUNCIL (FORMERLY RODNEY DISTRICT COUNCIL) HC AK CIV 2010-404-6912

Citation

openlaw-3ad83418_c1da_439e_9104_6ab24ad58799.pdf
Court

High Court

The Environment Court committed an error of law by failing to analyse whether the VH Overlay's policies and rules, in package, were, having regard to their efficacy and effectiveness, the most appropriate method to achieve the District Plan objectives as required by s32(3)(b) of the RMA; that error materially affected the decision and the matter is remitted to the Environment Court for further consideration.
2 Oct 2009

PACIFIC INVESTMENT TRUST V CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL HC CHCH CIV 2008-409-2743

Citation

openlaw-3003d5c4_dabe_409d_81b3_caeb8acedc6c.pdf
Court

High Court

The Environment Court exceeded its jurisdiction by adopting a 10 ha minimum lot size for discretionary activities in the RAL Zone because Liz Briggs' Reference and submissions did not reasonably and fairly alert interested parties to that relief; accordingly the Environment Court's amendment was beyond the scope of the Reference, evidence cannot supply jurisdiction, and the 10 ha threshold must be set aside and the 4 ha threshold reinstated.

New Zealand Case Law

ELLESMERE SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE INCORPORATED v CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 3011

PROTECT PAUANUI INC v THE THAMES COROMANDEL DISTRICT Council & ANOR [2013] NZHC 1944

OREWA LAND LIMITED V AUCKLAND COUNCIL (FORMERLY RODNEY DISTRICT COUNCIL) HC AK CIV 2010-404-6912

PACIFIC INVESTMENT TRUST V CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL HC CHCH CIV 2008-409-2743