Ngai Tahu Property Limited v Central Plains Water Trust and CRC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 15/2008
[2008] NZSC 49
BETWEENNGAI TAHU PROPERTY LIMITED

Applicant

ANDCENTRAL PLAINS WATER TRUST

First Respondent
ANDCANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Second Respondent

Court:Blanchard, McGrath and Wilson JJ
Counsel:D J Goddard QC for Applicant

M E Casey QC and R M Dunningham for First Respondent
M C Dysart for Second Respondent

Judgment:24 June 2008

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal in Central Plains Water Trust v Ngai Tahu Properties Ltd [2008] NZCA 71 is granted.

B The approved grounds are:
(1)Is priority as between competing resource consent applications determined by which application is lodged first with the consent authority, or by which is first ready for notification, or by some other test?

(2)Whatever the test, is priority lost by:
(1)A decision of the consent authority under s 91 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to defer notification of the application pending application for additional consents?
(2)Delay while the applicant makes additional applications required by the consent authority under s 91?
(3)The grant of an application by another applicant relating to the same resource?

CThe Registrar is directed to arrange a fixture in October, or earlier if counsel are available.

Solicitors:
Anderson Lloyd, Christchurch for Applicant
Buddle Findlay, Christchurch for First Respondent
Canterbury Regional Council, Christchurch for Second Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Ngai Tahu Property Limited applied for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal in Central Plains Water Trust v Ngai Tahu Properties Ltd. The primary issue was the priority between competing resource consent applications under the Resource Management Act 1991. The court had to determine whether priority is determined by the order of application submission to the consent authority, the readiness for notification, or another criterion. Additionally, it was necessary to establish whether priority could be lost due to a consent authority's decision to defer notification, any delay caused by the applicant making additional applications, or the grant of an application by another party concerning the same resource.

The court considered the statutory framework and relevant case law to address these issues. It examined the legislative intent behind the Resource Management Act and how it pertains to the priority of resource consent applications. The court also evaluated the implications of the consent authority's powers under section 91 of the Act, which allows for the deferral of notifications pending additional consents. Furthermore, the court assessed the impact of delays caused by additional applications and the effect of another party's application grant on the priority of the original applicant.

The Supreme Court granted the application for leave to appeal and identified specific grounds for the appeal, focusing on the priority determination and the potential loss of priority under certain circumstances. The court directed the Registrar to schedule the hearing in October or earlier if counsel were available. The outcome of this appeal will provide significant guidance on the interpretation and application of the Resource Management Act concerning the priority of resource consent applications.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established