Quake Outcasts and Fowler Development Ltd v Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 5/2014
[2014] NZSC 51

BETWEEN

QUAKE OUTCASTS
Applicant

AND

THE MINISTER FOR CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY
First Respondent

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY AUTHORITY
Second Respondent

FOWLER DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
Third Respondent

SC 8/2014
BETWEEN	FOWLER DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Applicant
AND	THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY AUTHORITY Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ and William Young J
Counsel:	F M R Cooke QC and M S R Palmer for Quake Outcasts S P Rennie and J E Bayley for Fowler Developments Limited D J Goddard QC, K G Stephen and A A Jacobs for Respondents
Judgment:	5 May 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe applications for leave to appeal in SC 5/2014 and SC 8/2014 are granted.

B The questions on which leave is granted are:

(a)Was the establishment of the Residential Red Zones in Christchurch lawful as being a legitimate exercise of any common law powers or “residual freedom” the Crown may have, given the terms of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011?
(b)Were the offers made by the Crown to Residential Red Zone property owners under s 53 of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 lawfully made? In particular:
(i)Was there a material failure to comply with the Act?

(ii)Was there a rational basis for the distinction drawn between those owners who were insured and those who were uninsured?

CThe appeal is set down for hearing on 29 and 30 July 2014. The appellants’ submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 10 June 2014. The respondents’ submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 1 July 2014.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
GCA Lawyers, Christchurch for Applicant SC5/2014
Rhodes & Co, Christchurch for Applicant SC8/2014
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was asked to determine whether the establishment of residential red zones in Christchurch, following the 2011 earthquake, was lawful. This decision was made in response to separate appeals by Quake Outcasts, a group of property owners, and Fowler Developments Limited. The central legal issues were whether the establishment of the red zones was a legitimate exercise of the Crown's powers, and whether the offers made to property owners under the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 were lawful. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether there was a material failure to comply with the Act and whether the distinction between insured and uninsured property owners was rational.

The court granted leave to appeal, indicating that the questions posed were significant and warranted further judicial examination. The court identified two main issues for determination: the lawfulness of the residential red zones and the legality of the offers made to property owners. The court recognized the importance of these questions in understanding the scope of the Crown's powers and the obligations under the Act. The appeal was scheduled for July 2014, with strict deadlines set for the filing and service of submissions from both the appellants and respondents.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established