New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Precedent effect

Legal area

Court

16 Aug 2019

POLLARD v WILLIAMS [2019] NZHC 2029

Citation

(2019) 20 NZCPR 371
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the District Court's exercise of discretion under s317(1)(d): the covenant's protective purpose is visual appearance; the proposed relocation of the Waiau homestead would not substantially injure entitled persons because most lots already have dwellings, the relocation would present a largely new exterior, the proposal is unusual so precedent risk is low, the dwellings are distant and screening reduces visual impact, and almost all other owners consented; however the variation must be narrowly tailored to permit only the specific relocation and limited use of pre-used ex…
11 Mar 2015

KENSINGTON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE CA64/2014 [2015] NZCA 60

Citation

[2015] NZCA 60
Court

Court of Appeal

No presumption mandates that challenges commenced in the TRA must remain there; the Commissioner may obtain transfer under s 138N(2) if the circumstances (notably significant precedential effect, moderate complexity and high likelihood of appeal) justify the High Court as the appropriate forum. Given the binding precedential impact across related disputes and other relevant factors, transfer to the High Court was properly ordered and the appeal was dismissed.
19 Sept 2011

STIRLING V CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL HC CHCH CIV-2010-409-002892

Citation

openlaw-e7209657_1ff5_4ed0_86ac_959d2ca6e528.pdf
Court

High Court

The Environment Court lawfully exercised its discretion under s104/s104B, gave greater weight to the City Plan's centres-based objectives and policies and to the real risk of precedent undermining the Plan, and properly declined consent despite findings of no significant immediate adverse effects from the single proposed development.
4 Jul 2006

NORWOOD LODGE V UPPER HUTT CITY COUNCIL CA CA37/06

Citation

openlaw-c655e0b2_f8da_4c5b_8434_0a935502353b.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The proposed questions do not raise questions of law suitable for the Court of Appeal because the Environment Court made factual findings of significant adverse effects and the issues raised are fact‑dependent evaluative matters; accordingly leave to appeal out of time is refused.
14 Dec 2005

WISE AND NEBESKY V THAMES-COROMANDEL DISTRICT COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2004-485-000278

Citation

openlaw-ee5a6fc4_a4a4_4271_9eee_280763a07a58.pdf
Court

High Court

The Environment Court's factual finding that the subdivision would adversely affect the area's character and amenity was supported by evidence and not a legal error; although the Environment Court did not explicitly identify or apply the permitted baseline (an error of law), that omission was immaterial given the expert evidence that the hypothesised permitted ancillary development was fanciful and would not alter the Court's assessment; consequently the appeal is dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

POLLARD v WILLIAMS [2019] NZHC 2029

KENSINGTON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE CA64/2014 [2015] NZCA 60

STIRLING V CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL HC CHCH CIV-2010-409-002892

NORWOOD LODGE V UPPER HUTT CITY COUNCIL CA CA37/06

WISE AND NEBESKY V THAMES-COROMANDEL DISTRICT COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2004-485-000278