19 Oct 2022
Because the respondent accepted that issuing the s4 Trespass Act warning via s26(2) was unreasonable and irrational and that it unjustifiably limited s18 NZBORA freedom of movement, declarations to that effect were appropriate and granted by consent; the warning was withdrawn.
14 Sept 2022
The Court held the Council complied with its LGA decision-making duties: it identified and assessed reasonably practicable options via officer analysis, adequately consulted under s82, exercised s79 discretion appropriately for a medium significance decision, and did not proceed on any material mistake of fact regarding business impact or comparative cyclist safety; application dismissed.
24 Aug 2022
On a correct construction of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 and its minerals programme the Act's purpose is to promote prospecting, exploration and mining and climate change targets and budgets are not mandatory relevant considerations for decisions under s 25; s 5ZN CCRA merely permits (does not compel) consideration of 2050 targets and budgets and cannot convert irrelevant matters into mandatory considerations; Treaty principles under s 4 may make climate issues indirectly relevant but no Treaty breach or inadequate engagement was established in this case, therefore the judicial review applica…
6 May 2022
Applicant failed to establish the statutory threshold that an interim order was necessary to preserve its position; even if threshold were met, the Court would decline relief in the exercise of its discretion because the public interest in promptly implementing a safety-improving, policy-consistent project outweighed speculative and unquantified delay and economic harms, and the applicant's substantive review case was not shown to be sufficiently strong to justify halting construction.
28 Apr 2022
The application is dismissed because the Council lawfully exercised its rating powers by assessing differentials according to land use, affordability and local wellbeing with relevant evidence before it; it did not take impermissible account of landowners' personal wealth, did not make material factual mistakes, climate change was not a mandatory consideration in the rates allocation context because it was addressed in the long-term plan, and the decision was not irrational or unreasonable.
16 Jun 2021
The Court held the Minister erred in law by failing to identify and assess the period appropriate to the East Coast tarakihi stock under s 13(2)(b)(ii) before applying social, cultural and economic factors to determine way and rate; the Minister also failed to have regard to the HSS guidance on acceptable rebuild probability (70%) and took into account an irrelevant consideration (the Industry Rebuild Plan) in determining the period appropriate to the stock; however adopting measures modelled at approximately a 50% probability was not, in itself, held to be unlawful.
28 Aug 2020
The Court declined to grant ex parte interim injunctive relief but, because the balance of convenience favoured preserving the applicants' position, accepted the respondent's undertaking not to accept any tender offer or enter into any sale and purchase agreement before 12 noon on 11 September 2020 and issued timetabling directions for an expedited interim hearing.
17 Oct 2019
The RPO committed procedural unfairness and failed to take a relevant consideration into account by refusing to access readily available Dropbox links to a Skype interview without adequate inquiry or alternative steps; because the omitted material was plausibly capable of affecting the outcome, the appropriate remedy was to quash the decision and remit the matter for reconsideration taking the Skype interview into account.
12 Aug 2019
The Court dismissed the judicial review: the Council lawfully and reasonably exercised its statutory discretion in setting the 2016/17 differential targeted wastewater rate using number of pans/urinals as a permitted factor under the Rating Act; rates cannot be set on a per-occupant or volumetric wastewater basis under the Rating Act; the applicant did not identify illegality or satisfy the high threshold of Wednesbury/unreasonableness to overturn the decision.
12 Mar 2018
The Specialist lawfully declined to treat funds transferred from accounts other than the nominated Emirates NBD account as satisfying the nominated capital requirement because the Instructions require assessment of nominated funds for beneficial ownership and lawful acquisition; although the Specialist erred in focusing unduly on absence of final consents rather than the reasonableness of steps taken, on the material before her it was open to her to conclude the applicant had not taken reasonable steps to establish the property development business by the end of the start‑up stage; accordingl…