Watercare Services Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-404-292 [2017] NZHC 2981

UNDER the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908

AND

UNDER

the Judicature Act 1908

AND

IN THE MATTER

of s 191(3) and Schedule 12 of the Local
Government Act 2002

IN THE MATTER

of an application by WATERCARE SERVICES LIMITED

Applicant

Hearing: 9 October 2017

Appearances:

R J Somerville QC, B S Carruthers and A M Cameron for the
Applicant
J Caldwell as amicus curiae with K Dawson

Judgment:

1 December 2017

JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J (Result)

This judgment was delivered by me on 1 December 2017 at 4:00 p.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors / Counsel:
Dr R J Somerville QC, Barrister, Dunedin
Ms B S Carruthers and Mr A M Cameron (applicant’s instructing solicitor), Russell McVeagh, Auckland
Ms J Caldwell and Ms K Dawson, Buddle Findlay, Auckland

RE WATERCARE SERVICES LTD [2017] NZHC 2981 [1 December 2017]

[1] On the application of Watercare Services Ltd for declarations, on the terms as amended at the hearing, I make the declarations sought, as follows:

(a) On a proper construction of section 181(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act), if there is a change of owner after written consent has been given, it is not necessary either to obtain the written consent from the subsequent owner or give the subsequent owner notice under Schedule 12(1)(b) of the Act of the intention to construct the works before the work is done.

(b)On a proper construction of Schedule 12 of the Act, if there is a change of owner after notice has been given under clause 1(b) of the Schedule, it is not necessary to give notice to any subsequent owner before the work is done.

[2] The reasons for this decision will follow.

Woodhouse J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Watercare Services Limited applied to the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, for declaratory relief concerning the interpretation of sections 181(3) and Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002. The application arose from a dispute over the obligations of Watercare Services in relation to obtaining consent and providing notice to property owners when undertaking construction works. The primary issue before the court was whether, upon a change of ownership after consent had been given, Watercare Services was required to obtain additional consent or notify the new owner before proceeding with the works. A secondary issue was whether, upon a change of ownership after notice had been given, Watercare Services was obligated to provide notice to the new owner before proceeding with the works.

The court, in delivering its judgment, found that section 181(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 did not necessitate obtaining written consent from a subsequent owner or notifying them of the intention to construct works if ownership changed after initial consent had been given. Similarly, the court ruled that Schedule 12 of the Act did not require notice to be given to a subsequent owner if the change in ownership occurred after the initial notice had been provided. The reasoning was based on a purposive interpretation of the statutory provisions, which aimed to streamline the process and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens. The court emphasised that the legislative intent was to provide clarity and certainty in the construction works process, thus allowing Watercare Services to proceed without further consent or notice obligations under the specified circumstances.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

UNDER	the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908
AND UNDER	the Judicature Act 1908
AND
IN THE MATTER	of s 191(3) and Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002
IN THE MATTER	of an application by WATERCARE SERVICES LIMITED Applicant

Hearing:	9 October 2017
Appearances:	R J Somerville QC, B S Carruthers and A M Cameron for the Applicant J Caldwell as amicus curiae with K Dawson
Judgment:	1 December 2017