CASE NOTES NUMBER SEARCH


FILTER SEARCH

Case Notes:

  • Thumb Point Station Ltd v Auckland Council [2015] NZHC 1035: NZHC 1035

    Thumb Point Station Ltd v Auckland Council

    Date: 22 Jun, 2015
    Number: NZHC 1035
    Author: Bronwyn Carruthers (Partner) and Anna McConachy (Senior Solicitor), Russell McVeagh

    Read Full Case Notes
  • Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Inc v The Hawkes Bay Regional Council: [2015] NZEnvC 50

    Objectives 21 and 22 of the Hawke's Bay Regional Resource Management Plan - Land Use and Freshwater Management

    Date: 23 Apr, 2015
    Number: [2015] NZEnvC 50
    Author: Bronwyn Carruthers (Partner) and Anna McConachy (Senior Solicitor), Russell McVeagh

    Read Full Case Notes
  • The Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension & Property Trust Board v Auckland Council: [2014] NZHC 3405

    Resource consent to remove a villa built in the 1880's

    Date: 11 Feb, 2015
    Number: [2014] NZHC 3405
    Author: Bronwyn Carruthers (Partner) and Evie Rainey (Solicitor), Russell McVeagh

    It is very rare for an applicant to judicially review a decision to notify (with most being challenges of decisions not to notify).  The 2009 amendments removed the presumption in favour of notification, and Toogood J has refined the remaining discretion to a question of whether notification would be likely to result in the Council receiving further information relevant to the issues for determination on the substantive application.  This will be useful for applicants, but could be seen as potentially further undermining the public participatory nature of the RMA.

    Read Full Case Notes
  • The Court's jurisdiction under section 293: NZHC 2616

    The Court's jurisdiction under section 293

    Date: 10 Dec, 2014
    Number: NZHC 2616
    Author: Bronwyn Carruthers (Partner), Evie Rainey (Solicitor), Russell McVeagh

    Read Full Case Notes
  • High Court dismisses judicial review of decision to refuse waiver: NZHC 1692

    High Court dismisses judicial review of decision to refuse waiver

    Date: 23 Oct, 2014
    Number: NZHC 1692
    Author: Bronwyn Carruthers (Partner), Emma Matheson (Senior solicitor), Russell McVeagh

    It is clear that there are two distinct parts to the Court’s consideration under s281.  The first part, the test of "unduly prejudiced", is quite different to the general consideration of delay in the context of the residual discretion.  Justice Venning explained that "the effect of the delay and the reasons for it are separate matters."  Even where the delay can be accommodated without unduly prejudicing the existing parties, good reason will be required to explain the length of the delay.  These reasons should be clearly explained in the supporting documentation filed with the waiver application, and the s299 appeal right should be exercised in preference to judicial review.

    Read Full Case Notes
top Previous
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Next