23 Jun 2006
BARKER V QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL HC INV CIV 2005-425-000453
- Citation
- openlaw-f66017ae_0102_42e6_ba39_670d50759d0b.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The consent notice was irregular because it did not specify any condition of the subdivision consent (it did not reflect Condition 5); notwithstanding that irregularity, the Court declined to set it aside by judicial review because statutory indefeasibility principles, the protection of purchasers who relied on the registered notice and Parliament's prescribed s221(3)/(3A) review/variation process meant the appropriate route was statutory variation rather than direct court intervention; therefore the judicial review application was dismissed.