Minister for Land Information v Seaton - [2012] NZCA 234

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA360/2011
[2012] NZCA 234

BETWEEN MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION
Appellant

AND ANN MARY SEATON
Respondent

Hearing: 9 February 2012

Court: Arnold, Randerson and Stevens JJ

Counsel: H S Hancock and I C Smith for Appellant
S P Rennie and J E Bayley for Respondent

Judgment: 7 June 2012 at 12.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is allowed.
BThe declaration made by the High Court is quashed.
CThere is no order for costs.

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Arnold J)

Introduction

This case concerns the correct interpretation and application of various provisions in the Public Works Act 1981 (PWA) relating to the compulsory acquisition of land by the Minister of Land Information (the Minister). In particular, the question is whether the land in issue is required for a Government work. The question arises because the Minister considers that the land is required to relocate electricity towers owned by Transpower New Zealand Ltd (Transpower) and Orion New Zealand Ltd (Orion) so as to permit the widening of a state highway.

Factual background

The respondent, Ms Seaton, owns some land beside State Highway 1 (SH1) near Christchurch. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), which is the Crown entity responsible for the improvement and maintenance of the state highway network, resolved to widen part of SH1, including the part running alongside Ms Seaton’s land. So as to enable the road-widening:
(a) NZTA needed to acquire a 13m² parcel of land from Ms Seaton.
(b)Three electricity towers, two owned by Transpower and one by Orion, had to be moved from their present position on the verge of SH1 (one tower straddles the boundary of Ms Seaton’s property). NZTA’s plan was that Transpower and Orion would relocate the towers wholly onto Ms Seaton’s land. NZTA needed to obtain easements from Ms Seaton to accommodate this.
NZTA (through The Property Group Ltd (TPG)) entered negotiations with Ms Seaton to acquire the necessary interests. Those negotiations broke down, however. Accordingly, the Minister issued a notice to acquire the parcel of land and the easements compulsorily under s 23 of the PWA. Ms Seaton did not object to the compulsory acquisition of the 13m² parcel of land, but did object to the compulsory acquisition of the easements for the towers. She filed judicial review proceedings in the High Court and an objection in the Environment Court. The proceedings in the Environment Court have been stayed pending the outcome of the judicial review proceedings.
Mrs Seaton’s judicial review proceedings contained three causes of action:
(a) The first alleged that the Minister was only empowered under the PWA to take easements directly required for road-widening, not land indirectly required, and these easements were not directly required for that purpose.
(b)The second alleged that, even if the Minister was empowered to take easements indirectly required for the road-widening, the easements at issue were not indirectly required for that purpose.
(c)The…

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 Minister for Land Information v Seaton 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: [2012] NZCA 234
Decision Date: 7 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal is before the Court of Appeal of New Zealand in Minister for Land Information v Seaton. The Minister for Land Information, the appellant, is appealing against a decision of the High Court that quashed a compulsory acquisition of easements over the respondent's property. The Minister argues that the easements were required indirectly for a Government work and that he had the authority to acquire the easements under the Public Works Act 1981 (PWA). The respondent argues that the Minister was not empowered to acquire land indirectly required for a Government work and that, in any event, the Minister exercised his power for an improper purpose.

The Court found that the Minister was empowered to acquire land indirectly required for a Government work and that the easements were required for the Government work of widening State Highway 1. The Court also found that the Minister did not exercise his power for an improper purpose in acquiring the easements. The Court concluded that the Minister's acquisition of the easements was for a proper purpose because the easements were required for a Government work and because the Minister was entitled to acquire land for the purpose of transferring it to another party.

The appeal is allowed and the declaration made by the High Court is quashed. There is no order for costs.

Orders