Legal Research
Cases
Spark New Zealand Trading Limited v Clearspan Property Assets Limited

Spark New Zealand Trading Limited v Clearspan Property Assets Limited

Case [2017] NZCA 352 16 August 2017

Judicial Review

Statutory Interpretation

Specific Performance

Administrative Law

Property Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA159/2017
[2017] NZCA 352

BETWEEN	SPARK NEW ZEALAND TRADING LIMITED Applicant
AND	CLEARSPAN PROPERTY ASSETS LIMITED Respondent

Hearing:	14 August 2017
Court:	French, Miller and Cooper JJ
Counsel:	M E Casey QC and R M Devine for Applicant D Chisholm QC for Respondent
Judgment:	16 August 2017 at 2.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether the arrangement summarised at [7] of the judgment below ([2017] NZHC 277) is a subdivision for purposes of s 218 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

B Costs are reserved.

____________________________________________________________________

This formulation of the question[1] permits argument of the subsidiary questions 2-6 in the application for leave.
[1]Section 308(1) Resource Management Act 1991.

Solicitors:
Minter Ellison Rudd Watts, Auckland for Applicant
Brown Partners, Auckland for Respondent

Details

AGLC: Spark New Zealand Trading Limited v Clearspan Property Assets Limited [2017] NZCA 352
Case: [2017] NZCA 352
Decision Date: 16 August 2017 at 2.00 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal heard an application from Spark New Zealand Trading Limited against Clearspan Property Assets Limited. The central dispute in this case pertains to the interpretation and application of section 218 of the Resource Management Act 1991, specifically whether a certain arrangement constitutes a subdivision under the act. This issue was initially determined by the High Court, and Spark New Zealand Trading Limited sought leave to appeal that decision.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the arrangement detailed at [7] of the High Court judgment should be considered a subdivision for the purposes of section 218 of the Resource Management Act 1991. The court was also required to consider subsidiary questions relating to the application for leave to appeal, as outlined in the High Court judgment.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and formulated the approved question as stated in the judgment. The court noted that this formulation allows for the argument of subsidiary questions 2 to 6 as outlined in the application for leave. The court reserved the matter of costs for a later determination. This decision provides Spark New Zealand Trading Limited the opportunity to challenge the High Court's interpretation of the Resource Management Act 1991 and its application to the specific arrangement in question.

Orders