Auckland Council v C P Group Limited

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 158/2021
[2022] NZSC 31

BETWEEN	AUCKLAND COUNCIL Applicant
AND	C P GROUP LIMITED First Respondent
MILLENIUM & COPTHORNE HOTELS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Second Respondent
MLC SCENIC LIMITED Third Respondent
T & T CLARRY’S HOLDINGS LIMITED Fourth Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	J E Hodder QC and J W S Baigent for Applicant A R Galbraith QC, T B Fitzgerald and S R Hiebendaal for Respondents
Judgment:	30 March 2022

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (C P Group Ltd v Auckland Council [2021] NZCA 587).
BThe approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Simpson Grierson, Auckland for Applicant
Bell Gully, Auckland for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand recently heard an appeal by Auckland Council against the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to a dispute involving the approval of a development application. The primary respondent in this case is C P Group Limited, with Millenium & Copthorne Hotels New Zealand Limited, MLC Scenic Limited, and T & T Clarry’s Holdings Limited as additional respondents. The central issue pertains to the approval process for a development application submitted to the Auckland Council by C P Group Limited, which was initially declined but subsequently allowed upon appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Auckland Council sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, questioning the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court revolved around the interpretation and application of the Resource Management Act 1991, specifically focusing on the discretionary powers of the Auckland Council in approving or declining development applications. The court had to determine whether the Court of Appeal's decision to overturn the Council's initial refusal to approve the development was justified. Key points of contention included the interpretation of the Act, the extent of the Council's discretion, and the appropriate standard of review applicable to the Council's decision-making process.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court examined the principles of judicial review and statutory interpretation, emphasizing the importance of the Council's discretionary powers under the Resource Management Act. The Court held that the Court of Appeal had correctly applied the principles of judicial review and statutory interpretation, affirming that the Council's initial refusal to approve the development was not supported by the evidence and was therefore unjustified. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the Auckland Council's application for leave to appeal but found that the Court of Appeal's decision was correct, thereby dismissing the appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established