Minister for Land Information v Dromgool

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA364/2019
[2019] NZCA 508

BETWEEN	MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION Appellant
AND	SHANE DROMGOOL AND DOROTHY DROMGOOL First Respondents
AND	ALAN DARVALL POULTON AND JENNIFER POULTON Second Respondents
AND	NEWMAN FARMS LIMITED Third Respondents

Court:	Gilbert and Goddard JJ
Counsel:	A N Isac QC, E M Jamieson and M C McCarthy for Appellant D M Salmon and A W McDonald for Respondents
Judgment: (On the papers)	22 October 2019 at 2 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is granted.
BThe approved question is whether the High Court erred in law in allowing the appeal[1] and setting aside the Environment Court’s report.[2]
[1]Dromgool v Minister for Land Information [2019] NZHC 1563.
[2]Dromgool v Minister for Land Information [2018] NZEnvC 108.
CCounsel should focus their submissions on:
(a) the role and obligations of the Minister under s 186 of the Resource Management Act 1991; and
(b) whether the inquiry into the adequacy of consideration of alternatives contemplated by s 24(7) of the Public Works Act 1981 is an inquiry into the adequacy of consideration of alternatives by the requiring authority, by the Minister, or by both.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Appellant
LeeSalmonLong, Auckland for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal in the case of Minister for Land Information v Dromgool. The appellant, the Minister for Land Information, sought leave to appeal the decision of the High Court which had allowed an appeal by the respondents, Shane Dromgool, Dorothy Dromgool, Alan Darvall Poulton, Jennifer Poulton, and Newman Farms Limited. The matter was ultimately about the adequacy of consideration of alternatives under the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Public Works Act 1981. The appeal centred on whether the High Court had erred in law when it set aside the Environment Court's report.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were the interpretation of the Minister's role and obligations under section 186 of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the scope of the inquiry into the adequacy of consideration of alternatives under section 24(7) of the Public Works Act 1981. The court had to determine whether the inquiry was limited to the adequacy of the requiring authority's consideration of alternatives, the Minister's consideration, or both. The court also needed to consider whether the High Court had correctly applied the legal principles in setting aside the Environment Court’s report.

The Court of Appeal granted the application for leave to appeal and formulated an approved question to guide the submissions. The approved question focused on whether the High Court had erred in law by allowing the appeal and setting aside the Environment Court’s report. The court directed that counsel should concentrate their arguments on the Minister's role under section 186 of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the nature of the inquiry into the adequacy of consideration of alternatives under section 24(7) of the Public Works Act 1981. This would ensure that the appeal was narrowed to the specific legal issues that required resolution.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that the application for leave to appeal was granted, and an approved question was set to guide the submissions on appeal. This decision allowed the matter to proceed to the substantive hearing where the legal issues would be thoroughly examined.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established