Strathboss Kiwifruit Limited v Attorney General

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 30/2020
[2020] NZSC 68

BETWEEN	STRATHBOSS KIWIFRUIT LIMITED First Applicant SEEKA LIMITED Second Applicant
AND	ATTORNEY‑GENERAL Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	A R Galbraith QC, D M Salmon, M Heard and J P Cundy for Applicants J E Hodder QC, P H Higbee and H T N Fong for Respondent
Judgment:	22 July 2020

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Attorney‑General v Strathboss Kiwifruit Ltd [2020] NZCA 98).

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross‑appeal.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Lee Salmon Long, Auckland for Applicants
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

Strathboss Kiwifruit Limited and Seeka Limited, as applicants, appealed a decision of the High Court which had rejected their challenge to certain legislative provisions and the manner in which they were applied by the Attorney-General. The applicants sought to have the Court declare that certain legislative provisions were inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and that the Attorney-General's actions in applying those provisions to the applicants' property were unlawful. The Attorney-General, as the respondent, defended the validity of the legislative provisions and the manner in which they were applied. The Court of Appeal had allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal, leading to the applicants' appeal to the Supreme Court.

The legal issues the court was required to decide centred on the compatibility of certain legislative provisions with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the application of those provisions to the applicants' property. The applicants argued that the provisions in question, which pertained to the compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes, were inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 because they did not provide adequate protection against arbitrary deprivation of property. The applicants also contended that the Attorney-General's actions in applying those provisions to their property were unlawful and breached their rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

The court considered the arguments from both parties and examined the relevant legislative provisions and their application to the applicants' property. The court found that the legislative provisions were consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, as they provided adequate protection against arbitrary deprivation of property and were proportionate to the public benefits that would result from the acquisition of the applicants' property. The court also found that the Attorney-General's actions in applying those provisions to the applicants' property were lawful and did not breach the applicants' rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Consequently, the court allowed the Attorney-General's appeal and dismissed the applicants' cross-appeal.

In light of the court's decision, the applicants were granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, and the approved question for appeal was whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal. The final orders of the Supreme Court will depend on the outcome of the appeal to the Supreme Court, which has yet to be determined at the time of writing.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established