Auckland Council v Wendco (NZ Ltd) and Wiri Licensing Trust

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 14/2016
[2016] NZSC 67

BETWEEN

AUCKLAND COUNCIL
Applicant

AND

WENDCO (NZ) LIMITED
First Respondent

WIRI LICENSING TRUST
Second Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	W S Loutit and K M Stubbing for Applicant R J Hollyman, S J Maloney and D A C Bullock for First Respondent G J Kohler QC and K T Glover for Second Respondent
Judgment:	16 June 2016

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Wendco (NZ) Ltd v Auckland Council [2015] NZCA 617).
BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Auckland Council was required to give Wendco (NZ) Ltd notification of the resource consent application made by the Wiri Licensing Trust.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Simpson Grierson, Auckland for Applicant
LeeSalmonLong, Auckland for First Respondent
Kemps Weir Lawyers, Auckland for Second Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Auckland Council v Wendco (NZ) Ltd and Wiri Licensing Trust, the Supreme Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining whether the Auckland Council was required to notify Wendco (NZ) Ltd of a resource consent application made by the Wiri Licensing Trust. The applicant, Auckland Council, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal that had ruled in favour of Wendco (NZ) Ltd. The first respondent, Wendco (NZ) Ltd, was represented by counsel, while the second respondent, Wiri Licensing Trust, was also represented by counsel. The Court of Appeal had concluded that the Auckland Council was indeed required to notify Wendco (NZ) Ltd of the resource consent application.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal's decision was correct in mandating the Auckland Council to provide notification to Wendco (NZ) Ltd regarding the resource consent application submitted by the Wiri Licensing Trust. This issue hinged on the interpretation of relevant statutory provisions and the established principles of administrative law, particularly the duty to provide adequate notice and the impact of such notification on the rights of affected parties.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had correctly interpreted the statutory provisions and administrative law principles. The Court held that the Auckland Council was indeed obligated to notify Wendco (NZ) Ltd of the resource consent application, as this was necessary to ensure that Wendco (NZ) Ltd could properly exercise its rights under the Resource Management Act 1991. The Court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the need to protect the rights of parties that could be affected by resource consent applications. The Supreme Court therefore granted the application for leave to appeal but did not overturn the decision of the Court of Appeal.

The final orders of the Court were that leave to appeal was granted, but the decision of the Court of Appeal that the Auckland Council was required to notify Wendco (NZ) Ltd of the resource consent application was upheld. This meant that the Auckland Council's duty to provide notification remained in place, and the procedural rights of affected parties were preserved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established