12 Mar 2021
Costs are awarded to the second respondent: scale costs assessed at 7.4 days x $2,390 = $17,686, with a 20% uplift under r 14.6 because the applicant pursued unnecessary and meritless arguments and refused a reasonable settlement, resulting in a costs award of $21,223.
18 Feb 2021
Interim injunction granted restraining respondents from implementing the decision to fell the identified 345 non-native trees on Ōwairaka until final determination of the appellants' appeal because without the injunction the appeal would be rendered nugatory given the irreversible nature of felling; on balance of convenience the applicants' interest in preserving the specific trees and ability to obtain effective relief on appeal outweighed the public and iwi interests in implementation subject to carve-outs for urgent health and safety works and a requirement that the appellants prosecute th…
8 Jul 2020
The Council lawfully processed the applications as consents to change the use of water already authorised by existing take permits; s14 permits the grant of standalone use consents which can authorise water taken under another permit; amalgamation of the new use consents with existing take consents was an administrative measure that did not create new takes; implemented consents form part of the existing environment for effects and notification assessments under ss95A/95B; accordingly there was no reviewable error in the Council's notification or substantive decisions and the judicial review…
16 Nov 2018
The Court held there is jurisdiction to award a lay litigant reasonable disbursements for legal advice where the fees were specific to the proceeding, reasonably necessary and reasonable in amount; applied a proportionality check against what would have been recoverable on scale had the litigant been represented to avoid windfall recovery. The Court awarded a contribution of NZD 5,500 towards the applicant's barrister fees, awarded court fees, expert fee and council file fee, awarded NZD 65 for the hardcopy RMA and NZD 2,000 for fees associated with the undertaking as to damages, and disallow…
16 Jun 2016
Leave to appeal was granted because the question whether the Council was obliged to notify Wendco raises a significant question of statutory interpretation of the notification provisions that warrants determination by this Court.
22 Dec 2014
There was a serious question to be tried on deceit or negligent misstatement and, balancing the convenience and the parties' positions, it was in the interests of justice to continue the limited holding orders restraining further construction on the third level pending the outcome of a fresh resource consent process and further court review.
22 Dec 2014
The court assumed there is a serious question to be tried on deceit (or negligent misstatement) but held the permanent injunction as pleaded was disproportionate; on balance of convenience the interim holding orders made by Venning J were continued to preserve the council consent process while a fresh consent application proceeds, allowing other works to continue and access for safety, reserving leave for further applications and listing the substantive proceeding for update.
11 Jun 2013
The Court of Appeal held that clause 4 of the 2001 settlement agreement did not prohibit Carrington from applying for a new land use consent on a different part of its land because clause 4 only restrained expansion of the then-existing 1999 consent; FNDC's non-notification decision was lawful because no 'special circumstances' under s94C(2) RMA were present that related to the subject land use application; the Environment Court correctly included the unimplemented 12-unit land use consent in the future environment for assessment under s104(1)(a) because it was satisfied the consent was likel…
17 Dec 2008
Although there was a serious question to be tried about notification and safety, the balance of convenience did not favour an injunction because Maritime New Zealand and the Harbour Master had reviewed and approved the second respondent's safety regime, the suspension had been lifted and MNZ proposed an audit within one month, so it would be wrong for the Court to restrain operations on the basis of the alleged safety concerns.
24 Oct 2008
The Supreme Court refused leave because the applicant had no real prospect of showing the Court of Appeal erred in its exercise of discretion to refuse remittal; the Court of Appeal properly weighed delay, prejudice and the low likelihood of a different outcome and the case lacked public or precedent value.