Gock v Auckland Council - [2019] NZHC 1603

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-866

[2019] NZHC 1603

IN THE MATTER of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 and the Resource Management Act 1991

BETWEEN

JOE GOCK AND FAY GOCK

Appellants

AND

AUCKLAND COUNCIL

Respondent

AND.................... continued over page

Hearing: 13 September 2019

Appearances:

A Webb for the Appellants

T R Fischer for the Respondent

R Enright for Auckland Volcanic Cones Society Inc (Interested Party)

Judgment:

26 September 2019

FINAL JUDGMENT OF MUIR J

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday 26 September 2019 at 4.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:………………………….

Counsel:
A Webb, Barrister, Auckland R Enright, Barrister, Auckland

Solicitors:
Wilson McKay, Remuera Simpson Grierson, Auckland Haigh Lyon, Auckland

GOCK v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 1603 [26 September 2019]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-923

IN THE MATTER of Local Government (Auckland
Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 and the Resource Management Act 1991

BETWEEN JOHN SELF, ADRIANA SELF AND
ROGER CLARK as Trustees of SELF FAMILY TRUST
Appellants

AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL
Respondent

Introduction

[1] In my interim judgment dated 27 February 20191 I allowed the appellants’ appeals in respect of one of six points and dismissed them in relation to the balance.2

[2] As to relief, I adjourned the proceedings for further submission after the parties had had an opportunity to consider the implications of my judgment.

[3]I have now heard the parties in relation to relief.

[4] In respect of the appellant the Self Family Trust, no specific relief is sought. This reflects the fact that the appeal point, which I found to be sustained, had limited application to the lands in the Trust’s ownership. By contrast, the implications for the land in the ownership of the appellants Joe and Fay Gock (the Gocks) were significant.

[5] The Gocks seek, by way of final relief, a relocation of the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) to include the Pūkaki Peninsula within the urban boundary and imposition of a Future Urban Zone (FUZ) over the land. Mr Webb provides a draft plan showing the proposed new location, although acknowledging it is “crude” and that if the Court grants the relief sought a technical description will be required.

[6] The respondent (the Council) opposes such relief. It says that the correct course is for the case to be remitted to the Environment Court to determine the proper location of the RUB on the Pūkaki Peninsula, having regard to my interim decision. The Auckland Volcanic Cones Society Incorporated does not seek to be heard in relation to relief on the Gocks’ appeal.

[7] This judgment is to be read in combination with my interim decision. I do not intend to repeat, other than to the extent necessary, any of the findings in it.

1 Gock v Auckland Council [2019] NZHC 276. No appeals have been…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gock v Auckland Council and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] NZHC 1603
Decision Date: 26 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Gock v Auckland Council involved an appeal by Joe and Fay Gock against a decision made by the Environment Court regarding the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) on the Pūkaki Peninsula. The Gocks sought a relocation of the RUB to include the Pūkaki Peninsula within the urban boundary and the imposition of a Future Urban Zone (FUZ) over the land. The Auckland Council opposed this, advocating for the case to be remitted to the Environment Court to determine the proper location of the RUB. The legal issues centered around the powers of the High Court on appeal and the principles for determining relief under Rule 20.19 of the High Court Rules, particularly the balance between the High Court and the specialist Environment Court.

The court examined the roles of the Environment Court and the High Court, noting the Environment Court’s expertise in planning matters under the Resource Management Act 1991. The High Court recognised that if the implications of a successful appeal required further specialist judgment, it was not appropriate to substitute its own decision. The court emphasized the evaluative judgment required by the Environment Court, which involved complex assessments of multiple statutory considerations. The court concluded that the Gocks' request for a substituted decision was inappropriate because the matter required further specialist evaluation by the Environment Court, which was best placed to make the necessary judgments. Therefore, the court decided to remit the case back to the Environment Court to determine the proper location of the RUB on the Pūkaki Peninsula, allowing the Environment Court to consider further evidence if it deemed appropriate. The court did not grant any relief in respect of the Self Family Trust appeal.

Orders