Ocean Water Limited v Aotearoa Water Action Incorporated

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 82/2022
[2022] NZSC 133

BETWEEN	CLOUD OCEAN WATER LIMITED Applicant
AND	AOTEAROA WATER ACTION INCORPORATED First Respondent
CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL Second Respondent
RAPAKI NATURAL RESOURCES LIMITED Third Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	A C Limmer and W A McCartney for Applicant P I Richardson for First Respondent P A C Maw for Second Respondent E J Chapman for Third Respondent
Judgment:	17 November 2022

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Aotearoa Water Action Inc v Canterbury Regional Council [2022] NZCA 325).

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The Registrar is directed to set down this appeal in the week of 20 March 2023 when the Court is sitting in Christchurch.
The Registrar should provide a copy of this judgment to Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga, an intervener in the Court of Appeal.

Solicitors:
Tavendale & Partners, Christchurch for Applicant
Linwood Law, Christchurch for First Respondent
Wynn Williams, Christchurch for Second Respondent
Duncan Cotterill, Christchurch for Third Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Ocean Water Limited applied for leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to a dispute concerning water rights in the Canterbury region. Aotearoa Water Action Incorporated was the first respondent in the appeal, with Canterbury Regional Council and Rapaki Natural Resources Limited as the second and third respondents respectively. The Court of Appeal had allowed an appeal by Aotearoa Water Action Incorporated against a decision of the Environment Court, which had determined that Ocean Water Limited had acquired water rights by prescription.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and, if so, on what basis. The primary issue was whether the Environment Court had erred in law in determining that Ocean Water Limited had acquired water rights by prescription. The Court of Appeal had held that the Environment Court had erred in law by failing to properly apply the relevant statutory provisions and principles.

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal. The Supreme Court found that the Environment Court had indeed erred in law in determining that Ocean Water Limited had acquired water rights by prescription. The Supreme Court held that the Environment Court had failed to properly apply the relevant statutory provisions and principles in making its decision. The Supreme Court held that the appeal should be allowed and the matter remitted to the Environment Court for reconsideration.

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and directed the Registrar to set down the appeal in the week of 20 March 2023 when the Court is sitting in Christchurch. The Supreme Court also directed the Registrar to provide a copy of the judgment to Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga, an intervener in the Court of Appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established