Reed v Waikato District Council - [2025] NZHC 1438

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2024-419-346

[2025] NZHC 1438

UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 and Part 30 of the High Court Rules

IN THE MATTER

of an application for judicial review of decisions under the Resource Management Act 1991

BETWEEN

ANTHONY PRIVETT REED and REED

TRUSTEE 2018 LIMITED (as trustees of the EAGLE TRUST)

Applicants

AND

WAIKATO DISTRICT COUNCIL

First Respondent

OCEANIA HELICOPTERS PUKEKOHE LIMITED

Second Respondent

RUBY & RATA LIMITED

Third Respondent

Hearing: 3 June 2025

Appearances:

D Bigio KC for Applicants

K Ridling for First Respondent
S Ryan and S Thompson for Second and Third Respondents

Judgment:

4 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[interlocutory issues]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang
On 4 June 2025 at 12.00 noon Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

REED v WAIKATO DISTRICT COUNCIL [2025] NZHC 1438 [4 June 2025]

[1] In this proceeding the applicants, the trustees of the Eagle Trust (the trustees), seek judicial review of decisions made by the Waikato District Council. The decisions related to an application for a land use consent by the second respondent, Oceania Helicopters Pukekohe Ltd (Oceania). Oceania sought consent to build a helicopter depot and commence a commercial helicopter operation on land owned by the third respondent, Ruby & Rata Ltd (Ruby). Ruby’s land adjoins a property owned by the Trust.

[2] The Council granted the consent on a non-notified basis. The trustees contend the Council erred in numerous respects in deciding that the application did not need to be notified and erred in granting it. It therefore seeks orders quashing both decisions.

[3] The Council, Oceania and Ruby oppose the application for judicial review. Oceania and Ruby have also filed a counterclaim against the trustees seeking to enforce an encumbrance that was registered over the land now owned by the trustees before they acquired it. Oceania and Ruby contend that the encumbrance requires the owners of the trustees’ land to support Oceania’s application for consent. They say the trustees acted in breach of the encumbrance by filing the application for judicial review. They maintain the trustees will continue to breach it if they pursue the application further. Oceania and Ruby seek declaratory relief as to the effect of the encumbrance, together with a permanent injunction prohibiting the trustees from taking further steps in the judicial review proceeding. In addition, they seek liquidated damages calculated in accordance with a formula prescribed by the encumbrance.

[4] The proceeding is still at a comparatively early stage. However, a dispute has arisen as to how it should proceed from here. The trustees wish to be able to progress their application for judicial review expeditiously. They are concerned that the issues raised by the counterclaim may prevent this from occurring. They therefore seek an order severing the trial of the counterclaim until after the Court has determined the application for judicial review.

[5] Oceania and Ruby…

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 Reed v Waikato District Council 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: [2025] NZHC 1438
Decision Date: 4 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the applicants, trustees of the Eagle Trust, challenged the decision of the Waikato District Council to grant a land use consent to Oceania Helicopters Pukekohe Ltd for the construction of a helicopter depot on land owned by Ruby & Rata Ltd. The trustees argued that the Council made several errors in deciding the application did not require notification and in granting the consent. They sought orders to quash the Council's decisions.

The central legal issues involved the Council's determination that the application did not need to be notified and its subsequent grant of consent. The trustees claimed these decisions were flawed. The respondents, including the Council, Oceania, and Ruby, opposed the application for judicial review. They also filed a counterclaim seeking to enforce an encumbrance over the trustees' land, arguing that it required the trustees to support Oceania's application for consent. They sought a permanent injunction against the trustees from proceeding further with the judicial review and liquidated damages.

The Court found that the encumbrance, registered against the trustees' land, bound them as the current owners. If the encumbrance had the effect claimed by Oceania and Ruby, the trustees would have breached it by initiating the judicial review. The Court considered it appropriate to direct the counterclaim be tried separately from the application for judicial review under Rule 5.58(2) of the High Court Rules 2016. This decision was made because the counterclaim raised primarily legal issues that should be determined first. Additionally, if the counterclaim succeeded, it would likely render the application for judicial review moot.

The Court ordered that the counterclaim be tried separately and first, to the extent it sought to enforce compliance with the encumbrance. The claim for damages would proceed only if the encumbrance was found enforceable. The Court also made pre-hearing directions to ensure the fixture of the first stage of the counterclaim could be allocated at short notice. The successful parties on the applications, Oceania and Ruby, were awarded costs on a category 2B basis.

Orders