What timely legal advice could have avoided

What timely legal advice could have avoided
Thursday 20 June, 2019
The benefit of timely (and early) legal advice on council notification decisions in contentious resource consent applications has been highlighted in the recent High Court decision in Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc v Northland Regional Council & Resin and Wax Ltd [2019] NZHC 449 [15 March 2019] (Resin & Wax Decision).
One potential, but not common, outcome of judicial review proceedings in the High Court is the award of costs to the party who applied for and then discontinued judicial review, leaving a responding council to contribute to that party's costs even though the council had admitted errors in its decision-making process and therefore signalled it would abide by the Court’s decision (and otherwise take little active part in the process). This was the outcome in the Resin & Wax Decision.
Northland Regional Council (‘Council’) decided not to notify an application and then granted consents to Resin & Wax to mine kauri resin in “the second-most environmentally important wetland in Northland”. A month later Forest & Bird learned of Council’s decision and obtained information about the consents. Forest & Bird then advised Council that it considered there were errors in Council’s decision making process and would challenge its process through judicial review if Council did not admit its errors. Forest & Bird also asked Resin & Wax to surrender its resource consents. Council disputed Forest & Bird’s view of its decision making process. After nearly five months of unsuccessful discussions, Forest & Bird applied to the High Court to judicially review Council’s decisions. Within six weeks of the commencement of judicial review proceedings, Council admitted it had applied the wrong statutory test in its notification decision and accordingly advised it would not defend its original decisions not to notify Resin & Wax’s application and grant it consents. Resin & Wax, learning of Council’s admission, surrendered its resource consents. Forest & Bird discontinued its application for judicial review, leaving the Court to decide its application for costs.
The usual presumption in High Court proceedings is that the party who discontinues their proceeding (in this case Forest & Bird) must pay costs to the other parties responding to that proceeding (Council and Resin & Wax). Forest & Bird therefore had to first persuade the Court to put this presumption aside in order to then seek an order from the Court requiring Council and Resin & Wax to pay its costs.
The Court held that it was appropriate in this case to displace the presumption and order the Council and Resin & Wax to pay Forest & Bird’s costs for a number of reasons:
- Forest & Bird’s decision to apply for judicial review was reasonable given the matters it raised regarding Council’s errors in its notification decision were of legitimate public importance;
- Forest & Bird notified Council and Resin & Wax a number of times that it intended to apply for judicial review, giving those parties a corresponding number of opportunities to find a solution before the proceedings commenced;
- Forest & Bird discontinued the proceeding at the appropriate time following Council’s admission of its error and Resin & Wax’s surrender of consents;
- Forest & Bird ultimately succeeded in achieving the underlying objective of its judicial review proceedings (the surrender of the consents), meaning it was vindicated in its concerns regarding Council’s decision making process;
- Council reconsidered its earlier rejection of Forest & Bird’s view only after judicial review proceedings had commenced; and
- Council’s application of the incorrect statutory test in its notification assessment and decision was a “fundamental error that is likely to have been identified in the course of the proceeding or during the hearing, making the Council's resistance of Forest and Bird's challenge ultimately untenable.”
On this basis, the Court decided that it was just and equitable to displace the usual presumption and instead award costs to Forest & Bird even though as the applicant for judicial review it had discontinued its application.
We regularly help our local government clients in their notification assessments and decisions which the Resin and Wax Decision shows can be a wise investment, ultimately saving our clients significantly greater costs later.
For assistance with questions relating to this article, please contact Theresa Le Bas.
Related Articles

Councils challenge to transfer of water services rejected in High Court
Thursday 30 March, 2023

When the rubber hits the road - All aboard Aotearoa's challenge
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Declarations that an Enactment Inconsistent with Bill of Rights
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Proposed mandatory consideration of specific Māori representation
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

New Regime for Protected Disclosures (Whistleblower legislation)
Wednesday 29 June, 2022

Operative plans and proposed plans: what to do when there is a significant policy shift?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Notices of requirement are relevant for resource consent applications
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Avoidance policies reign in the wake of King Salmon, but what do they require?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Court gives guidance on consultation and decision-making process
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Cultural evidence and the continued draw of the overall judgment
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Fluoridation debate lifted from shoulders of local government
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Will new housing density rules increase contributions for developers?
Thursday 28 October, 2021

Judicial review of Hamilton City Council's development contributions policy
Tuesday 5 October, 2021

Lease of Wanaka Airport set aside due to insufficient consultation
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

What if an abatement notice requires you to breach the Resource Management Act?
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

“No ‘wine-ing’ covenants” declined for a subdivision consent in Gibbston Valley
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

From car parking fine to judicial review of a council’s code of conduct
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

Councils remain liable for compliance of contractors with the RMA
Thursday 18 March, 2021

Randerson Report released: New Direction for Resource Management
Wednesday 5 August, 2020

Could companies be liable to the public for the harm caused by their emissions?
Tuesday 10 March, 2020

Avoiding double penalties when sentencing a company and director
Thursday 23 April, 2020

Can an easement be granted over an esplanade reserve for a commercial activity?
Thursday 12 December, 2019

Draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2019 for consultation
Thursday 3 October, 2019

Local authority requiring monetary contributions on designations
Thursday 20 June, 2019

Bella Vista: MBIE Report highlights failure to perform statutory functions
Tuesday 9 April, 2019

Recent decision on "affected persons" highlights the importance of context
Wednesday 28 November, 2018

High Court finds Council liable in negligence for damage from fallen tree
Thursday 27 September, 2018

Court upholds sensible approach to local authority works on private property
Tuesday 24 July, 2018

Must Councils accept an assertion that a person is ‘suitably qualified'?
Friday 9 March, 2018
