Faloon v Palmerston North Airport Limited

[2013] NZHC 1084

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2012-485-2265 [2013] NZHC 1084

UNDER  the Resource Management Act 1991

BETWEEN  CLARENCE JOHN FALOON Appellant

AND  PALMERSTON NORTH AIRPORT LIMITED

Respondent

Hearing:         On papers

Counsel:         C J Faloon in person

J W Maassen for Respondent

Judgment:      14 May 2013

In accordance with r 11.5, I direct the Registrar to endorse this judgment with the delivery time of 12:00pm on the 14th May 2013.

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J

[1]      Mr Faloon has applied without notice to consolidate two proceedings under r 10.12 of the High Court Rules.   The first case is an RMA proceeding currently before me: Faloon v Palmerston North Airport Limited, and the second case is Faloon v Commissioner of Inland Revenue a matter not before me and about which I have limited knowledge.  Rule 10.12 grants the court a discretion to consolidate two proceedings if they share a common question of law.

[2]      Faloon  v  Palmerston  North  Airport  Limited  is  an  appeal  against  an

Environment Court decision.   Mr Faloon applies for a declaration that Palmerston

North Airport Limited is diverting water without the required resource consent.  The

FALOON V PALMERSTON NORTH AIRPORT LIMITED HC WN CIV-2012-485-2265 [14 May 2013]

Environment Court struck out the application because it was vexatious and it disclosed no reasonable or relevant case.

[3]      Briefly, the grounds advanced on appeal were:

(a)        the Environment Court should have heard from Mr Faloon before reaching its decision;

(b)      Mr Faloon had no ulterior motive beyond ensuring compliance with s

14 of the Resource Management Act; and

(c)       Mr Faloon’s case was arguable.

[4]      Mr Faloon argues that Faloon v Commissioner of Inland Revenue raises a question of law regarding whether he is “deemed to stand possessed of the 1977-year Kawau Stream diversion by s 21(d) of the Land Transfer Amendment Act 1963.”  He argues that this matter is currently before me in Faloon v Palmerston North Airport Limited.

[5]      It is not.  Mr Faloon did refer to s 21(d) in his submissions to me in Faloon v Palmerston North Airport Limited, but s 21(d) is about property ownership.   This question was not within the Environment Court’s jurisdiction, is not relevant to the appeal before me, and I will not address it on appeal.

[6]      It cannot therefore be said that the same question of law arises in both cases. The application is dismissed.

Williams J