Glenora Developments Ltd v Auckland Council [2015] NZHC 1422 (23 June 2015)

Last Updated: 19 August 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2015-404-186 [2015] NZHC 1422

BETWEEN	GLENORA DEVELOPMENTS LTD Plaintiff
AND	AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant

Hearing:	23 June 2015
Counsel:	H M Rice and N A Speir for Plaintiff P J Dale for Defendant
Judgment:	23 June 2015

_{(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF HEATH J}

Solicitors:

Ewart & Ewart, Auckland Rice & Co, Auckland Counsel:

_{P J Dale, Auckland}

GLENORA DEVELOPMENTS LTD v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 1422 [23 June 2015]

[1] Auckland Council (the Council) has applied for an adjournment of a judicial review hearing which is set down for two days on 29 and 30 June 2015. At issue is the process undertaken by the Council and the interpretation of provisions of the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (the Act), in relation to a decision made by the Council on an application by Glenora Developments Ltd (Glenora) to exercise a recommendatory function under the legislation.

[2] The Council has declined Glenora’s application and it is that decision which Glenora seeks to impugn on the judicial review application. As well as being of importance to Glenora, a judgment on the application may well have important ramifications for the way in which Councils generally deal with applications of this type. It is conceivable that any decision of this Court may not be the last word on the subject.

[3] I have discussed this morning with counsel the current state of the pleadings, the evidence and the issues to be determined. The way in which the documents have presently been presented is unsatisfactory and I am not persuaded that the hearing can go ahead in any form next week. I do not put the blame on any particular party. As usual, on applications such as this, each party asserts fault on the part of the other. Any issues that are related to conduct can be determined later, in the context of costs.

[4] It is possible for the application to be heard on 5 and 6 August 2015. I vacate the judicial review hearing on 29 and 30 June 2015 and allocate 5 and 6 August 2015 for argument of the substantive application. Counsel’s appearances are excused on

29 June but the hearing on 30 June is retained for reasons that follow.

[5] It is important that the parties focus on what information needs to be before the Court at the hearing, and in what form. It is important in a case such as this, for the pleadings and evidence to be put before the presiding Judge in a manageable and clear way.

[6] Counsel are to confer, and no later than 4pm on 29 June 2015, they shall file a joint memorandum which sets out the directions that each seeks to deal with outstanding issues. They may include a request for discovery by Glenora, the

possibility of interrogatories or further affidavits, the question whether leave should be granted for an amended Statement of Claim to be filed, and the timing of substantive submissions.

[7] If there were disagreement about the proposed timetable then counsel should ensure that a bundle of relevant documents to which the Judge will need to refer to determine questions relating to the timetable is before him or her at the hearing on 30

June 2015. Any issues of that type will be resolved that day. That will enable preparation to be carried out for the hearing in August.

[8] The proceeding is adjourned to 10am on 30 June 2015, either for the presiding Judge to confirm timetabling orders requested by the parties or, alternatively, to hear from them on the issues raised. In the event of disagreement, the joint memorandum shall set out, in synopsis form, the positions taken by the parties in respect of any contested issues.

[9] All questions of costs are reserved, for determination at the conclusion of the substantive proceeding.

P R Heath J