Marlborough District Council v Altimarloch JV

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 33/2010
[2010] NZSC 126
BETWEENMARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL
Appellant

ANDALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED
First Respondent
ANDD S AND J W MOORHOUSE
Second Respondents
ANDVINING REALTY GROUP LIMITED
Third Respondent
ANDGASCOIGNE WICKS
Fourth Respondent

Court:Blanchard, Tipping and McGrath JJ
Counsel:D J Goddard QC for Appellant
M E Casey QC and R M Dunningham for First Respondent
M R Ring QC and A B Darroch for Third Respondent

Judgment:20 October 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to extend the grounds of appeal is dismissed.

REASONS
[1] The departmental report upon which the appellant now wishes to rely to support its statutory interpretation argument does not come within the scope of legislative material conventionally regarded as available for that purpose. The report was not referred to by the Select Committee nor was it mentioned in Parliamentary debate. Furthermore, even if the position in that respect were otherwise we do not consider the report provides sufficient support for the appellant’s argument to cause us to review the Court’s earlier decision to decline leave for the point to be argued.
[2] For these reasons the appellant’s application to extend its grounds of appeal to include the ground previously rejected must be dismissed. Costs are reserved.
Solicitors:
Heaney & Co, Auckland for Appellant
Buddle Findlay, Christchurch for First Respondent
Duncan Cotterill, Nelson for Third Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Marlborough District Council v Altimarloch JV, the appellant, Marlborough District Council, sought leave to extend the grounds of appeal against a decision made by the High Court. The primary dispute centred around the Council's attempt to include an additional statutory interpretation argument that had previously been rejected. The respondents to the appeal included Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited, D S and J W Moorhouse, Vining Realty Group Limited, and Gascoigne Wicks. The matter was heard by Justices Blanchard, Tipping, and McGrath in the Supreme Court of New Zealand.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant was entitled to extend the grounds of appeal to incorporate a statutory interpretation argument that had not been previously considered. Specifically, the appellant wanted to rely on a departmental report to support its argument, despite the report not being cited in parliamentary debates or select committee reports. The court had to determine if the report constituted appropriate legislative material and if it provided sufficient grounds to warrant a review of the earlier decision to decline the argument.

The court ruled that the departmental report did not qualify as conventional legislative material and was neither referenced in parliamentary debates nor select committee reports. Even if it were considered, the report did not sufficiently support the appellant's argument to warrant a review of the earlier decision. Consequently, the court dismissed the application to extend the grounds of appeal. Costs were reserved pending further determination.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established