Seafood New Zealand Limited v Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 99/2023
[2023] NZSC 154

BETWEEN	SEAFOOD NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Applicant
AND	ROYAL FOREST & BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED First Respondent
AND	MINISTER FOR OCEANS AND FISHERIES Second Respondent
AND	TE OHU KAI MOANA TRUSTEE LIMITED Third Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Williams and Kós JJ
Counsel:	B A Scott and A Kraack for Applicant S R Gepp and M C Wright for First Respondent N C Anderson and K F Gaskell for Second Respondent J P Ferguson for Third Respondent
Judgment:	24 November 2023

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Leave to appeal is granted (Fisheries Inshore New Zealand Ltd v Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc [2023] NZCA 359).
BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Chapman Tripp, Wellington for Applicant
P D Anderson, Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc, Wellington for First Respondent
Crown Law Office | Te Tari Ture o te Karauna, Wellington for Second Respondent
Kāhui Legal, Wellington for Third Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Seafood New Zealand Limited v Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated, the Supreme Court of New Zealand was called upon to review a decision made by the Court of Appeal. The applicant, Seafood New Zealand Limited, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their appeal concerning the legality of a by-law enacted by the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries. The Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated was the first respondent, and the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, along with Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Limited, were the second and third respondents respectively. The crux of the dispute involved the interpretation and application of fisheries management laws and the extent to which environmental groups could challenge regulatory decisions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Court of Appeal had correctly dismissed the applicant's appeal. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Court of Appeal properly interpreted the relevant statutory provisions and whether it was correct in its assessment of the applicant's arguments regarding the by-law in question. The applicant contended that the by-law was unlawful due to procedural flaws in its enactment, while the respondents argued that the by-law was valid and properly implemented under the statutory framework.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, held that the Court of Appeal had not erred in dismissing the applicant's appeal. The court found that the by-law was enacted in accordance with the statutory provisions and that the procedural steps taken were sufficient. The court emphasised the importance of deference to the decisions of administrative bodies in matters of regulatory detail and concluded that the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the statutory provisions was consistent with legislative intent. Therefore, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal but upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal.

In light of the Supreme Court's decision, the applicant's appeal was dismissed, and the by-law in question was upheld as valid. The court's ruling reinforced the principle that courts should exercise caution when reviewing the procedural aspects of administrative decisions, particularly in the context of fisheries management legislation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established