New Health New Zealand Incorporated v South Taranaki District Council and Attorney-General for and on behalf of the Minister of Health

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 141/2016
[2017] NZSC 13

BETWEEN

NEW HEALTH NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED
Applicant

AND

SOUTH TARANAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL
First Respondent

ATTORNEY-GENERAL for and on behalf of the Minister of Health
Second Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and OʼRegan JJ
Counsel:	M T Scholtens QC and L M Hansen for Applicant D J S Laing and H P Harwood for First Respondent S V McKechnie and K G Stone for Second Respondent
Judgment:	20 February 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (New Health New Zealand Inc v South Taranaki District Council [2016] NZCA 462, [2017] 2 NZLR 13).

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals of the appellant in CA159/2014, CA615/2014 and CA529/2015.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

We note that if the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill is passed the Court may ask for submissions on whether we should reconsider the grant of leave.

Solicitors:
Wynn Williams Lawyers, Christchurch for Applicant
Simpson Grierson, Wellington for First Respondent
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Second Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

New Health New Zealand Incorporated sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand against the decisions of the Court of Appeal in three cases concerning the fluoridation of drinking water. The Court of Appeal had dismissed New Health New Zealand's appeals, which arose from decisions by the South Taranaki District Council and the Attorney-General regarding the fluoridation of drinking water. The Supreme Court was required to determine whether the Court of Appeal had been correct in dismissing the appeals and, if so, whether leave to appeal should be granted.

The legal issues at hand involved the interpretation and application of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Health Act 1956, with a focus on the interplay between local authority decision-making and national health policy. The key issue was whether the Court of Appeal had properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the appeals, considering the principles of statutory interpretation and the balance of powers between local authorities and central government in matters of public health.

The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had exercised its discretion correctly and upheld the dismissal of the appeals. The Court determined that the Court of Appeal had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant statutes, and that the decisions of the South Taranaki District Council and the Attorney-General were consistent with the statutory framework. The Supreme Court also noted that if the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill were to be passed, it may request further submissions on whether it should reconsider the grant of leave to appeal.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, confirming the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decisions. The Court emphasised the importance of respecting the statutory framework and the roles of local authorities and central government in matters of public health, while also acknowledging the potential for legislative change in the future.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established