Seaton v Minister for Land Information - [2013] NZSC 42

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 44/2012
[2013] NZSC 42

BETWEEN ANN MARY SEATON
Appellant

AND MINISTER FOR LAND INFORMATION
Respondent

Hearing: 13 November 2012

Court: Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers and Glazebrook JJ

Counsel: S P Rennie and J E Bayley for Appellant
H S Hancock and A A Jacobs for Respondent

Judgment: 29 April 2013

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is allowed.
BThe judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside.
CThe orders made in the High Court are restored.
DThe respondent is to pay the appellant, with respect to costs in this Court, the sum of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
EIf the parties cannot agree on costs in the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal must fix them.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Para No

Elias CJ [1]

Chambers and Glazebrook JJ [27]

McGrath and William Young JJ [71]

ELIAS CJ

The appeal concerns the compulsory taking of easements for electricity lines and supporting towers over land owned by the appellant, Mrs Seaton. The easements are sought by the Minister of Lands using his powers under the Public Works Act 1981 but are to be transferred when obtained to Orion New Zealand Ltd, a network utility operator, to be held as part of its electricity distribution network for Christchurch.[1]
[1]Originally two network utility operators were interested in the towers and line, Transpower New Zealand Ltd and Orion New Zealand Ltd. But in August 2012 Transpower sold its assets affected by the present proceedings to Orion. I therefore refer only to Orion, although the decisions in the High Court and Court of Appeal refer to both utility providers.
Orion has existing lines over Mrs Seaton’s land, in respect of which it has existing use rights protected by s 22 of the Electricity Act 1992. The lines are supported by three towers on the margin of Russley Road, in part on Crown land and in part on land owned by Mrs Seaton. Although Orion’s existing interests over the Crown land are also protected by s 22 of the Electricity Act, the New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) requires Orion to remove the existing towers on the road margin because of the widening of the carriageway, which at that location forms part of State Highway 1.
At the instigation of NZTA, the Minister has given notice of intention (under s 23 of the Public Works Act) to compulsorily acquire easements in gross over Mrs Seaton’s land to enable replacement towers to be located on the land and to replace the existing statutory use rights for the lines (although it is not clear that Orion’s statutory rights in relation to the lines would be affected by relocation of the

towers[2]). The easements proposed provide for use for telecommunications purposes as well as for the conveyance of electricity. They also provide more elaborate access rights and interests in land for the…

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 Seaton v Minister for Land Information 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: [2013] NZSC 42
Decision Date: 29 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Seaton v Minister for Land Information, the Supreme Court of New Zealand considered whether the Minister for Land Information had the power to compulsorily acquire easements over land owned by Mrs Ann Seaton to facilitate the relocation of electricity towers in Christchurch. The Court had to determine if the easements were required for a Government work, as defined under the Public Works Act 1981, or if they were required for the work of a network utility provider, which would necessitate a different statutory regime under the Resource Management Act 1991. The case proceeded through the High Court, where Gendall J ruled in favour of Mrs Seaton, and then to the Court of Appeal, which reversed the decision. Mrs Seaton appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the easements were not required for a Government work but were instead required for the work of a network utility provider. The Court found that the Public Works Act only empowered the Minister to acquire land for Government works, not for the works of network utility providers. The Court emphasised that the easements were intended for the benefit of the utility companies, not for the public purpose of road-widening. The Court also rejected the argument that the Minister could acquire the easements indirectly for a Government work, stating that the language of the statute clearly limited acquisition to what was reasonably necessary for the specified Government work. The Court concluded that the Minister's decision to acquire the easements was unlawful and reinstated the High Court's orders, declaring the notice of intention to take the easements invalid. The Court allowed Mrs Seaton's appeal and ordered the Minister to pay her costs.

Orders