Rangitira Developments Ltd v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 105/2018
[2019] NZSC 6

BETWEEN	RANGITIRA DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Applicant
AND	ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED Respondent

Court:	William Young, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	J E Hodder QC and M R G Christensen for Applicant M C Smith and P D Anderson for Respondent
Judgment:	20 February 2019

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc v Rangitira Developments Ltd [2018] NZCA 445).

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was in error in setting aside the declarations made at [86] of the judgment of the High Court (Rangitira Developments Ltd v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Ltd [2018] NZHC 146, (2018) ELRNZ 312).

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Natural Resources Law Ltd, Christchurch for Applicant
Gilbert Walker, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Rangitira Developments Limited sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal, which had set aside certain declarations made by the High Court. The original dispute involved the granting of resource consents to the applicant for the development of a subdivision in the Marlborough Sounds, New Zealand. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc opposed the granting of these consents, arguing that the development would have adverse effects on the environment, including the degradation of local waterways and habitats. The High Court initially granted the resource consents but was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal, which directed the High Court to reconsider its decision.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal had erred in setting aside the declarations made by the High Court. Specifically, the Court needed to determine if the Court of Appeal had correctly exercised its discretion in directing the High Court to reconsider its decision on the resource consents. The Supreme Court was also required to examine the grounds upon which the Court of Appeal based its decision and whether these grounds were legally sound and justified the intervention in the High Court's original determination.

The Supreme Court, in granting leave to appeal, held that the Court of Appeal had indeed erred in setting aside the High Court’s declarations. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had misapplied the standard of review in the circumstances and had overlooked certain key factors that warranted the High Court’s original decision. The Supreme Court underscored that the intervention by the Court of Appeal was not warranted based on the principles of judicial review and the scope of appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeal had overstepped its bounds in directing the High Court to reconsider its decision, thereby misapplying the legal principles that should guide such a process.

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant leave to appeal signifies that the case will return to the High Court for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. This outcome ensures that the original decision-making process is revisited, with the High Court now empowered to make its determinations in accordance with the Supreme Court's guidance on the applicable legal standards and principles.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established