New Zealand: Decision – Whangamata Marina Society

Grant Slevin, a solicitor with the Christchurch Lawlink firm of Wynn Williams & Co, discusses the High Court decision that forced the Minister of Conservation to reconsider his refusal of a permit for a marina development in Whangamata.

If people were surprised to learn, in March 2006, that the Minister of Conservation could effectively overturn an Environment Court decision to allow a marina development, they were perhaps less surprised when, in September 2006, the High Court told him to think again.

The basis of these extraordinary events is found in the Resource Management Act 1991, which reserves a process of ministerial review for decisions affecting coastal development, and in the High Court’s power of judicial review, by which it can decide whether decisions made by those in public office should be set aside because they have not been made in accordance with the law.

The development in question, first proposed by the Whangamata Marina Society Incorporated in 1992, would involve the construction of a 300 metre breakwater and control structures to contain four hectares of the coastal marine zone, dredging of a marina basin and channel to it, and the reclamation of 1.4 hectares of salt marsh for a hard stand and parking area. All of this is planned for the Moanaanuanu Estuary of the Whangamata Harbour.

The Minister of Conservation was required to consider the Environment Court’s report, which approved this plan, before deciding whether or not to issue a permit. The reason for that unusual provision, as Justice Fogarty observes in his decision, is because of the importance Parliament attaches to coastal development. The Minister is said to deal with about 25 such permit applications each year.

In the course of reaching this decision the Minister held meetings with interested parties and reviewed the evidence presented to the Environment Court. Focusing exclusively on the issues of whether Tangata Whenua and ecological values would be unduly compromised by the development, the Minister disagreed with Court’s findings and decided to reject the application.

The Minister’s decision was immediately controversial. Bitterly opposed by local iwi, conservationists and surfers alike, the development proposal had cost the Society almost $1m to drive through the planning and Environment Court processes. Many questioned whether any faith or confidence could be placed in a legal process that could be so simply overturned by an apparently political decision.

It then came to light, in a blaze of publicity, that on 1 March 2006 there had been a telephone call from the Minister’s office to the Mayor of Waitakere, Bob Harvey, a known opponent of the development. On the same day Mr Harvey had sent an email to one of the lobbyists opposed to the development, asking him "to assemble for the Minister a range of spokesmen to support him in his decision on the Whangamata bar." Allegations were then made that the whole process undertaken by the Minister was a charade, his mind having been made up from the outset.

While the Act does not provide for an appeal against the Minister’s decision, the law does allow an alternative course of action. Another Act of Parliament recognises a longstanding right for the High Court to review almost any significant decision by a public body, whether made by a cabinet minister or a humble official.

The Court will not decide whether any particular decision made by a public official is correct, but whether it was arrived at in accordance with the law and through a proper process. A decision-maker must consider all matters made relevant by the Act and exclude all matters that are irrelevant, as well as acting fairly towards the parties and adhering to the rules under which the decision must be made.

Most such applications fail, and even the few that succeed do not always result in a different outcome. The result of a successful application will usually be an instruction from the Court to do it again, but properly.

Mindful of the need to let governments govern, the Court will not interfere in decisions that are purely political in nature, or in those that do not affect the applicant’s rights in some substantive way. Nor will it interfere with a legitimate exercise of discretion.

The first question for the Court in this case was accordingly to decide whether the Minister’s decision was a purely political matter, reserved to him as a policy maker on behalf of the government, or an administrative task to be performed in accordance with Parliament’s instructions as set out in the Resource Management Act.

Policies affecting coastal development are contained in a range of national and regional policy statements, to which both the Environment Court and the Minister must have regard. These are not subject to unilateral alteration by the Minister, even if he doesn’t agree with their contents, so it was apparent that his decision could not be a matter of policy.

The Minister’s power to decide whether a restricted coastal activity should be permitted or not is provided by sections 119 and 104 of the Resource Management Act. By closely studying those sections and deciding what they oblige the Minister to do, the Court was able to conclude that the discretion conferred on him is relatively confined, and therefore amenable to its review. Having made that decision, the Court was able to look at what the Minister had actually done and contrast that with what the law required of him. He was found to have made three procedural errors.

First, he set about the task of reconsidering the evidence before the Environment Court. That was a highly specialised task and not one which Parliament had entrusted to him. It was not open to him to disagree with the Court’s conclusions based on the evidence it had heard.

Secondly, the Minister reviewed those materials over only the last few days of the period available to him, and did so without reference to the parties’ lawyers. That was unfair and accordingly in breach of the common law standards of natural justice.

Thirdly, by meeting with interested parties before reaching his decision, the Minister was found to have considered matters that had not been considered by the Environment Court. He should have referred those matters back to the Environment Court for their consideration – a procedure specifically provided for in the Act – but did not do so. Instead he chose to declare, in his decision, that he had not considered any matters that would have required that step and had disregarded the comments made to him during the meetings held at Whangamata. That was not enough. The possibility that he had received additional information, which may have influenced him, was enough to create a risk of prejudice to the Society, which had not been given an opportunity to respond.

The most serious claim made by the Marina’s developers, that the Minister had predetermined his decision and was biased, did not succeed. Although it was clear from a letter dated 22 February 2006 that the Minister had already formed tentative views, that did not amount to predetermination. The controversial communications with Mr Harvey did not amount to proof that a decision had already been made by 1 March, the Court accepting the evidence of Mr Harvey that he did not know what the ultimate decision would be at that stage and similarly the Minister’s evidence that he did not make his decision until 7 March.

Having found that the Minister erred nonetheless, the Court then had to consider whether it should exercise its discretion to set aside his decision. In this case, the errors were of a serious character and the Court was not satisfied that the same outcome would have been reached if a proper process had been followed. Indeed, the early memoranda of the Minister’s staff pointed to a decision the other way.

Having set aside the decision, the Court directed the Minister to recommence the decision making exercise afresh, while also refusing a request for an order that he should delegate the task to another Minister, who would not be affected by the earlier errors.

Having won its case, the applicant Society was awarded costs in line with ordinary principles. It has reported its actual costs at $250,000. Whether it wins the ultimate prize, in the form of a permit, remains, at the time of writing, to be seen.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions