Glenpanel Development Limited v Expert Consenting Panel
[2025] NZSC 109
•28 August 2025
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA |
| SC 55/2025 [2025] NZSC 109 |
| BETWEEN | GLENPANEL DEVELOPMENT LIMITED |
| AND | EXPERT CONSENTING PANEL |
| Court: | Glazebrook, Ellen France and Miller JJ |
Counsel: | V L Heine KC, D A C Bullock and I K Rollinson for Applicant |
Judgment: | 28 August 2025 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS
Glenpanel Development Ltd seeks leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal in which that Court held that Matthew Allan, the chair of an expert consenting panel convened under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 (the 2020 Act), was not disqualified for a conflict of interest or apparent bias.[1]
[1]Glenpanel Development Ltd v Expert Consenting Panel [2025] NZCA 154 (Mallon, Cooke and Collins JJ) [CA judgment] at [61] and [63].
The Court agreed with Dunningham J that Mr Allan’s status as a partner in a law firm, Brookfields, which acts for a competitor to Glenpanel, did not present a conflict of interest, and nor did his role as an advisor to Auckland Council and Auckland Transport, in which capacity he had advised on the meaning of the 2020 Act.[2] Further, no question of apparent bias or predetermination arose in circumstances where there was no evidence that Glenpanel’s competitor had any interest in opposing the development which was the subject of the application.[3]
[2]Glenpanel Development Ltd v Expert Consenting Panel [2023] NZHC 2069, (2023) 25 ELRNZ 114 [HC judgment] at [156] and [158]–[159]; and CA judgment, above n 1, at [57]–[61].
[3]HC judgment, above n 2, at [154]; and see CA judgment, above n 1, at [58].
However, the Court of Appeal allowed Glenpanel’s appeal for other reasons. It directed that the panel reconsider the application in light of this Court’s subsequent decision in Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc v New Zealand Transport Agency.[4]
[4]CA judgment, above n 1, at [37]–[47] citing Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc v New Zealand Transport Agency [2024] NZSC 26, [2024] 1 NZLR 242.
Mr Allan has since resigned from the panel, so he will play no part in its decision. Further, the 2020 Act has been repealed, although it will continue to govern the reconsideration.
Glenpanel maintains that this Court should nonetheless grant leave to appeal. It contends that an issue of general or public importance arises because permanent fast-track consenting processes have now been enacted in the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 and they similarly provide for the appointment of expert panels.[5]
[5]See Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2)(a).
Glenpanel also contends that there remains a live issue because the lawfulness of Mr Allan’s conduct might bear on the amount of costs it is or might be required to pay to the Environmental Protection Agency under the 2020 Act’s processes for recovery of administrative costs.
We accept that a question of general or public importance may arise regarding the tests for apparent bias and conflicts of interest for lawyers who act in a quasi‑judicial capacity as members of expert consenting panels. But because Mr Allan will not participate in the panel’s reconsideration the issue is no longer live in this proceeding. The question of exposure to administrative costs appears to have been raised as something of an afterthought; we have no information about the criteria applied or the amount which might be attributed to the Court of Appeal’s decision that Mr Allan was not disqualified.
For these reasons, we are not satisfied that a question of general or public importance arises and calls for decision in this case. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
As the respondent has (rightfully) abided throughout, there is no order as to costs.[6]
[6]See CA judgment, above n 1, at [64]. There is also no question whether Glenpanel should be ordered under s 178 of the Senior Courts Act to pay the costs of counsel assisting: see Fish Man Ltd (in liq) v Hadfield [2017] NZCA 589, [2018] 2 NZLR 428 at [96].
Solicitors:
LeeSalmonLong, Auckland for Applicant
Meredith Connell, Wellington for Respondent
0
4
0