Transpower New Zealand Ltd v Auckland Council

[2017] NZHC 1585

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-002330 [2017] NZHC 1585

IN THE MATTER

of the Local Government (Auckland

Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 and the
Resource Management Act 1991

AND

of an appeal under s 158 of the LGATPA

BETWEEN

TRANSPOWER NEW ZEALAND LTD Appellant

AND

AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent

AND

HOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION

FEDERATED FARMERS OF NZ INC GREATER EAST TAMAKI BUSINESS ASS INC

MAHUNGA DRIVE BUSINESS ASS INC

ONEHUNGA BUSINESS ASS INC ROSEBANK BUSINESS ASS INC HUGH GREEN LTD

CDL LAND NZ LTD MANUKAU HARBOUR RESTORATION SOCIETY VECTOR LTD

Section 301 parties

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	10 July 2017

FINAL JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie

On 10 July 2017 at 3.30pm Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

TRANSPOWER NEW ZEALAND LTD v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 1585 [10 July 2017]

[1]      I acknowledge receipt of the parties’ joint memorandum dated 26 May 2017.

[2]      Regrettably, the joint memorandum and the draft consent order were only brought to my attention by the Registry on the afternoon of 7 July 2017, and then only because I enquired as to the whereabouts of the same.   I will be raising that issue with the Registrar.

[3]      I have read the joint memorandum and the draft consent order.

[4]      For the reasons set out in my interim judgment released on 28 February 2017, I am satisfied that the relevant parts of the Council’s decision in relation to the national grid yard contained in the version of the Proposed Unitary Plan released on

19 August 2016 were in error on points of law.

[5]      I consider that the amendments proposed by the parties and detailed in the draft consent order attached to the memorandum are consistent with the Resource Management Act  1991  and  with  the  Local  Government  (Auckland  Transitional Provisions) Act 2010.

[6]      The Court has the power under r 20.19 of the High Court Rules 2016 to approve the proposed settlement.  All interested parties have given their consent to the same, and I am satisfied that the orders sought fall within the scope of Transpower’s appeal.

[7]      Accordingly, I order as follows:

(a)       the consent order sought by the parties is approved; and

(b)subject  to  the following  amendments,  I approve the draft  consent order submitted with the joint memorandum.   The two amendments are as follows:

(i)Vector  Ltd  is  to  be  added  to  the  intitulement  to  the  draft consent order as a s 301 party; and

(ii)the spelling of the word chapter in proposed rule A14A is to be corrected.

[8]      In the parties’ initial memorandum dated 12 April 2017, Transpower, as the successful party, advised that it had agreed to let costs lie where they fall.   That agreement was, however, expressed to be “on the basis of the agreements recorded in [that] memorandum”.

[9]      I   did   not   approve   the   agreements   contained   in   that   memorandum. Transpower had not indicated its position in relation to costs in the latest memorandum dated 26 May 2017.

[10]     If agreement has been reached in relation to costs, then no further steps are necessary.

[11]     If agreement has not been reached, then I direct as follows:

(a)       any memorandum seeking costs is to be filed within 10 working days of the date of this final judgment;

(b)any memoranda in reply are to be filed within a further 10 working days; and

(c)       memoranda are not to exceed five pages in length.

I will then deal with the issue of costs on the papers, unless I require the assistance of counsel.

Solicitors/counsel: Chapman Tripp, Auckland Buddle Findlay, Auckland

Atkins Holm Majurey, Auckland

Ellis Gould, Auckland

Daniel Overton & Goulding, Auckland

Russell McVeagh, Auckland

Wylie J