New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Resource consents

Legal area

Court

24 Jul 2023

WYNYARD QUARTER RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 1938

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1938
Court

High Court

The Commissioner committed reviewable error by failing to take into account the loss of visual amenity (noticeable change in views) to future residents of 30 Madden when assessing affected persons and notification, but the Court exercised its discretion to refuse relief because of inordinate delay, prejudice to Orams caused by reliance and completion of Building 2, and commercial agreements and withdrawal of objections by Willis Bond/Panuku in 2019 that bind successors; accordingly review granted but no relief ordered.
17 May 2023

POINT CHEVALIER SOCIAL ENTERPRISE TRUST v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 1174

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1174
Court

High Court

Joinder of Ockham and the Expert Consenting Panel was declined because any effect on RC2 from quashing the part of the Carrington Backbone Consents that permits demolition is remote, uncertain or minor: RC2's legality does not derive from the Backbone Consents; alternative road alignments exist that avoid RC2 impact; potential effects would arise only through subsequent council reconsideration and are therefore speculative. The Attorney‑General was joined because the Crown is a landowner of underlying land and is a proper party under the Act.
21 Nov 2022

MADE GROUP LTD v KIWIRAIL HOLDINGS LTD [2022] NZHC 3038

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3038
Court

High Court

The application for a stay was declined because the High Court judicial review raises distinct issues of lawfulness about an alleged decision on 21 August 2020 that the Environment Court cannot determine; the Environment Court's s171 RMA role is limited to assessing adequacy of consideration of alternatives (process), not to adjudicating the lawfulness of the respondents' alleged decision, so a stay pending the Environment Court was inappropriate
20 Jul 2022

AOTEAROA WATER ACTION INCORPORATED v CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2022] NZCA 325

Citation

[2022] 3 NZLR918
Court

Court of Appeal

Where a regional plan (the LWRP) defines 'taking and use' of groundwater as a single regulated activity and links assessment of the amount taken to the proposed use (r 5.128 and rr 5.129–5.130), a consent authority cannot lawfully grant a standalone consent authorising only the 'use' of water for a new purpose without considering and authorising the associated 'take'; the Council's grant of standalone use consents CRC180728, CRC180729 and CRC182812, and consequent amalgamations dependent on them, was unlawful and those consents are set aside.
24 May 2022

RE EDWARDS (TE WHAKATŌHEA) NO. 6 [2022] NZHC 1160

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1160
Court

High Court

CRHL was granted leave to appear as an interested party because it became the legal owner of the relevant infrastructure and the holder of the resource consents after the due date, thereby having a vital interest in the recognition proceedings; no opposition was filed, and granting leave was appropriate to protect that interest.
17 May 2022

CABLE BAY WINE LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2022] NZCA 189

Citation

[2022] NZCA 189
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the proposed legal questions were either premised on an incorrect factual-legal proposition (that the 2006 consent authorised the lawn use) or were merits questions improperly framed as questions of law; the High Court correctly held the 2006 consent did not authorise the lawn activity (it was a permitted activity) and s10, not the 2006 consent, is the statutory route for protection of permitted uses against later plan changes; the proposed issues were not of general or public importance nor proper questions of law for a second appeal.
2 Dec 2021

PORT OTAGO LIMITED v ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE SOCIETY INCORPORATED [2021] NZCA 638

Citation

[2021] NZCA 638
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and held the PRPS (as drafted and as modified by the Environment Court) failed to give effect to NZCPS avoidance policies: a policy that requires adverse effects in areas of outstanding natural character to be 'avoided' cannot be converted into 'avoid, remedy or mitigate' without breaching s62(3) and King Salmon; accordingly the PRPS wording was invalid insofar as it diluted NZCPS bottom lines.
18 May 2021

TE RŪNANGA O NGĀTI AWA v BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 1095

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1095
Court

High Court

Creswell was entitled to an award of scale 2B costs in both the regional and district consent appeals, but the Court reduced scale costs by 20% to reflect public interest factors and overlap; the regional award is $18,403 (CIV-2020-463-7) payable jointly and severally by the appellants, and the district award is $17,447 (CIV-2020-463-10) payable by Sustainable Otakiri Incorporated; payment should not be deferred pending appeal.
2 Feb 2021

AOTEAROA WATER ACTION INC v CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 48

Citation

[2021] NZHC 48
Court

High Court

The Court awarded costs to the successful respondents: costs assessed on category two generally with band C uplift for particular steps including commencement of defence and an extra day's preparation, allowed increased preparation costs, reduced the Cloud Ocean and Rapaki awards to reflect their lesser role (and denied second counsel allowances), applied a 10% public interest discount to otherwise appropriate costs, and refused deferment of payment pending appeal.
1 Dec 2020

POUTAMA KAITIAKI CHARITABLE TRUST AND D & T PASCOE v TARANAKI REGIONAL COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 3159

Citation

(2020) 22ELRNZ 202
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal. The Environment Court did not err in law by issuing an interim decision where final mitigation depended on the acquisition agreement and Further Mitigation Agreement with Ngāti Tama; the Court properly applied RMA principles (ss6,7,8) and had sufficient evidence to conclude Ngāti Tama held mana whenua and exercised kaitiakitanga for the project area while rejecting Poutama's competing factual claims; compensation and acquisition issues for the Pascoes lie in the Public Works Act process and the Environment Court reasonably concluded the haul road, storage…