Shark Experience Limited v Pauamac5 Incorporated, Director General of Conservation and Shark Dive New Zealand Limited

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 86/2018
[2018] NZSC 121

BETWEEN	SHARK EXPERIENCE LIMITED Applicant
AND	PAUAMAC5 INCORPORATED First Respondent
AND	DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CONSERVATION Second Respondent
AND	SHARK DIVE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Third Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	S J Grey for Applicant B A Scott and S R Roberts for the First Respondent J M Prebble and D J Watson for the Second Respondent
Judgment:	11 December 2018

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for an extension of time is granted.
BThe application for leave to appeal is granted (PauaMAC5 Inc v Director-General of Conservation [2018] NZCA 348).

CThe approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A of the Wildlife Act 1953.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Chapman Tripp, Wellington for First Respondent
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Second Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shark Experience Limited, a company that conducts shark cage diving tours, applied to the Supreme Court of New Zealand for an extension of time to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision that shark cage diving is an offence under section 63A of the Wildlife Act 1953. The Court of Appeal had previously held that the Director-General of Conservation had the power to designate areas where shark cage diving is prohibited. The first respondent, PauaMAC5 Incorporated, had also appealed against the Court of Appeal’s decision, but their appeal was dismissed. Shark Dive New Zealand Limited, a third respondent, had intervened in the proceedings.

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shark cage diving is an offence under section 63A of the Wildlife Act 1953. The Court had to consider whether the Director-General of Conservation had the power to designate areas where shark cage diving is prohibited and whether the Court of Appeal had correctly interpreted the relevant statutory provisions. The Court also had to consider whether the applicant had established a sufficient ground of appeal to warrant an extension of time and leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shark cage diving is an offence under section 63A of the Wildlife Act 1953. The Court found that the Director-General of Conservation had the power to designate areas where shark cage diving is prohibited and that the Court of Appeal had correctly interpreted the relevant statutory provisions. The Court also found that the applicant had established a sufficient ground of appeal to warrant an extension of time and leave to appeal. The Court granted the application for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal, and approved the ground of appeal that was proposed by the applicant. The Court did not make any final orders in this case, as the appeal is yet to be heard.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established