New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Resource consent interpretation

Legal area

Court

11 Jun 2020

ZINDIA LTD v MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL [2020] NZCA 229

Citation

[2020] NZCA 229
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal was granted because the Court identified a concrete question of law—whether the High Court erred in construing the meaning and scope of Consents U120345.1 and U120345.6—and although the issue was unlikely to be of general public importance, there was a real risk of miscarriage of justice if the consents were misconstrued and Zindia was deprived of its proper appellate remedy.
29 Oct 2019

MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ZINDIA LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2765

Citation

(2019) 21 ELRNZ 364
Court

High Court

The Environment Court erred in interpreting Consent U120345.1 as expressly authorising commercial forestry harvesting; the correct construction is that the consent authorised preparatory works for harvesting (roads, landings, culverts, barge ramp) and some volunteered mitigation conditions, but did not extend to authorise the felling and removal of trees across the block. Accordingly the abatement notice cancelling those operations was improperly set aside and must be reinstated.
27 Sept 2012

BURRELL DEMOLITION LIMITED V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL HC WN CIV-2010-485-2310

Citation

openlaw-a0fa6502_398d_4b58_a8fb_67fbadcb8539.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court granted leave to appeal on the contested legal questions concerning s338(4) timing, evidential requirements to prove offending and the necessity to prove breach of consent conditions as part of the actus reus, and whether respondents were bound by earlier particulars on batter angles; the court held time under s338(4) does not start until the authority is sure of its ground (here when lead adviser advised), that councils need not provide direct contemporaneous evidence of filling on the alleged date and need not prove specific consent condition breaches as part of the actus reu…
22 Jun 2012

BURRELL DEMOLITION LIMITED V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL HC WN CIV-2010-485-2310

Citation

openlaw-529c02ce_a5f7_416b_8201_46a8b4cad24e.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court held (a) the councils did not know and should not be treated as knowing of the contraventions until 23 December 2008 when the lead consultant finalised the RL datum and compiled the final report, so the informations were timely under s338(4); (b) evidence of ongoing landfilling (14 Aug 2008 survey, subsequent site visits, and admissions) permitted an irresistible inference that landfilling occurred on or about the charged date; (c) because statutory provisions and consent conditions put the burden on the appellants to prove on the balance of probabilities that activities were e…
25 Mar 2004

GILLIES WAIHEKE LIMITED And Ors V THE AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL CA CA284/03

Citation

openlaw-3bb62c8a_e30d_41e3_b1ff_70d92e845a6c.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Read objectively, the notation 'approximately 765 m3 proposed' on the submitted plan, coupled with the consent condition requiring work in accordance with the submitted information and plans, imposed an upper limit on earthworks authorised by the consent; appellants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the earthworks carried out were expressly allowed, so convictions were upheld.
25 Mar 2004

GILLIES WAIHEKE LIMITED And Ors V THE AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL CA CA284/03

Citation

openlaw-3871816f_5849_43b7_bec5_d9404add5b92.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

An objective reading of the consent and accompanying plans, including the notation "approximately 765 m3 proposed" and the express condition that works be carried out in accordance with submitted information and plans, imposed an upper limit of 765 m3 of earthworks; the appellants did not prove on the balance of probabilities that larger earthworks were expressly allowed, so convictions under s9(1)(a) were upheld.

New Zealand Case Law

ZINDIA LTD v MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL [2020] NZCA 229

MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ZINDIA LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2765

BURRELL DEMOLITION LIMITED V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL HC WN CIV-2010-485-2310

BURRELL DEMOLITION LIMITED V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL HC WN CIV-2010-485-2310

GILLIES WAIHEKE LIMITED And Ors V THE AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL CA CA284/03

GILLIES WAIHEKE LIMITED And Ors V THE AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL CA CA284/03