New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subdivision consents

Legal area

Court

31 Aug 2023

MA v ZHAO & ANOR [2023] NZHC 2435

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2435
Court

High Court

The application for an interim injunction was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried on breach of trust or undervalue given the likely lapse of consents, the applicant's interests were protected by a caveat, damages were an adequate remedy, a voluntary sale avoided prejudice from mortgagee sale, and the applicant's unexplained delay disentitled him to emergency relief.
15 Dec 2016

L WEST v ONEW GROUP LIMITED [2016] NZHC 3066

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3066
Court

High Court

The caveat was sustained because there is a reasonably arguable equitable interest: disputed expert evidence and unresolved factual questions about whether the vendor complied with its contractual and RMA-related obligations (including further terms obliging it to obtain and implement consents) make summary removal inappropriate; the vendor had not demonstrated it had taken required steps or that specific performance was unavailable or futile.
16 May 2011

PACIFIC FARMS LIMITED V PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL COA CA116/2010

Citation

COA CA116/2010
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court declarations because the High Court was confronted with inadequate and late evidence (notably the late disclosure of RM2636 and failure to address operative regional plan provisions) which prevented a reliable resolution of whether stormwater discharges were permitted or required regional consents; notification and quashing issues could not be properly determined on the material before the High Court, so the High Court's orders and costs award were set aside and the appeals disposed accordingly.
27 Nov 2008

MAWHINNEY V WAITAKERE CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2008-485-1119

Citation

openlaw-5bef4ebc_195e_4c87_abc6_b2feb6ad79b1.pdf
Court

High Court

The Environment Court correctly struck out the appeals as an abuse of process because the applicant's joint use of s139 certificates and s88 resource consents constituted a contrivance to evade the statutory and plan-based regime governing subdivision; the RMA treats subdivision consents and certificates of compliance as disjunctive and the Act provides a complete code for subdivision control, so the appeals were properly dismissed.
23 Nov 2007

MORGAN V WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL HC WHA CIV 2006-488-239

Citation

openlaw-8f9ff795_949b_4436_a86b_6fb311abbce5.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court held the contested conditions were intra vires: ss108(1) and 108(2)(c) authorised imposing conditions protecting indigenous vegetation and requiring pest/weed management on a subdivision; such continuing conditions can be secured by consent notices under s221 and be registered as covenants; the bracketed words in s108(2)(d) do not prevent this construction; the conditions were logically connected to the subdivision and not imposed for an ulterior purpose; appeal dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

MA v ZHAO & ANOR [2023] NZHC 2435

L WEST v ONEW GROUP LIMITED [2016] NZHC 3066

PACIFIC FARMS LIMITED V PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL COA CA116/2010

MAWHINNEY V WAITAKERE CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2008-485-1119

MORGAN V WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL HC WHA CIV 2006-488-239