High Court Judgments of Public Interest
This page provides access to judgments of the High Court in the last 90 days deemed to be of particular public interest.
More information about finding court judgments is available on the Judgments section of this website.
It is the responsibility of users of the information contained in these decisions to ensure compliance with conditions or other legal obligations governing access, release, storage and re-publication. See also the guide on statutory provisions that prohibit publication of certain information in certain circumstances (PDF, 211 KB). If in doubt you should consult the court that issued the decision(s). Judicial decisions are presented in PDF format to preserve the integrity of the documents.
Whether Council had identified persons potentially affected by proposed development.
Whether Council had failed to make separate notification and substantive consent issues through making decision as to both based on single report.
Whether Council had failed to make necessary determinations through simply comparing effects of proposed development against what would have been the effects of an earlier consented development.
Result: The first defendant was found liable in defamation. Plaintiff awarded damages of $350,000 with costs and interest accruing from the date of judgment.
Held: previous interim order should be sustained until the application for judicial review has been determined.
The Court granted CMT and PCR recognition orders for a number of the applications, and determined a range of legal, tikanga and technical issues under the Act, including that under s 58, holding the area in accordance with tikanga entailed an assessment of tikanga values rather than western property concepts, that the concept of "joint exclusivity" could be applied to the parties in some circumstances, and clarifying what amounted to "substantial interruption".
Held: the power to give formal warnings in the absence of an unequivocal admission by an offender is not prescribed by law; declaration given that the decision made by the Police to issue the applicant with the formal/warning in respect of the offence of sexual grooming of individual is unlawful and is set aside.