Marie Taylor-Cyphers, Barrister, Dunedin Dean Tobin, Barrister, Dunedin O’Sullivan & Associates, Wellington Sumpter Moore, Milton
BARRON v CLUTHA DISTRICT COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 52 [31 January 2020]
Introduction
[1] Mr Barron was removed as leader and member of a working group (“the working group”) set up by the Clutha District Council (“the Council”). The working group had been tasked with providing the Council with advice on options for the future of the Balclutha War Memorial Hall (“the Hall”). Mr Barron seeks judicial review of the Council’s decision to remove him.
Background
[2] A considerable number of affidavits and affidavits in reply have been filed by members of the Council and working group. Some of those involved hold strong views as to the Hall’s future and how the working group should operate. The deponents have devoted considerable energy to setting out their view of the relevant facts. Several disputes emerge. It is unnecessary for me to resolve those. I have endeavoured however to set out the competing accounts below.
[3] One point of agreement between all involved is that the Hall is of high importance in the Balclutha community. The evidence on this point of Ms Rachel Jenkinson, a councillor from 2016 until 2019, was unchallenged. She explains that the Hall is an important asset of the community. It holds deep significance as a recognition of the sacrifices made by district service people in the Second World War. It is also of almost daily use by a number of community groups, including sporting, theatrical, and charitable organisations and is used as a gathering place for events such as funerals. The evidence of Ms Alison Ludemann, who has been a councillor for the Balclutha Ward since 2016, is that it functions as the town hall of Balclutha. Suffice to say the Hall and its future is a matter of considerable interest in Balclutha and the wider Clutha District.
[4] However, the Hall is run-down and in need of refurbishment. In December 2016 the Council began looking at options available to it and in April 2017 it obtained a scoping and feasibility report in respect of potential redevelopment. This noted strong community support for redevelopment of the facility as part of a wider potential redevelopment of community spaces in Balclutha known as the “Our Place” scheme,
which the Council had initiated in 2015. The redevelopment of the Hall was identified by the Council as the second-highest priority within the wider “Our Place”…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Barron v Clutha District Council
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Barron v Clutha District Council [2020] NZHC 52
Case
[2020] NZHC 52
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr Kevin William Barron sought judicial review of the Clutha District Council's decision to remove him from his position as leader of a working group tasked with advising on the future of the Balclutha War Memorial Hall. The court was required to determine whether the Council's decision was amenable to judicial review, and if so, whether it was valid. The court held that the decision was amenable to judicial review, but found that Mr Barron had not established any valid grounds for review. The court rejected Mr Barron's claims of failure to consult, bias, and pre-determination, finding that the Council's decision was a political one, within its discretion, and not subject to judicial review. The court dismissed Mr Barron's application for judicial review.