[Full judgment: Royal_Forest_and_Bird_Protection_Society_of_NZ_Inc_v_Buller_Dis.pdf]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY
CIV-2013-409-683
[2013] NZHC 1346

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under s 299 Resource Management Act 1991
BETWEEN ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED
Appellant
AND BULLER DISTRICT COUNCIL AND WEST COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL
First Respondents
BULLER COAL LIMITED
Second Respondent
AND WEST COAST ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK INCORPORATED
Interested Party

Hearing: 27, 28 and 30 May 2013
Appearances: P D Anderson and S R Gepp for the Appellant
J O M Appleyard, B G Williams and T A Lowe for Respondents
Q A M Davies for Interested Party
Judgment: 7 June 2013

JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J

[…]

Conclusion

[125] That said, given that the Environment Court has not yet finally decided the case, I think it is appropriate that I do refer this decision back to be considered by the Environment Court, who, as a result, are required to keep mitigation considerations separate from offset considerations.

[126] I do not make a formal finding against the use of the term “compensation” or “environmental compensation”, because it was not directly put in issue.

[127] Costs are reserved. Forest and Bird has been partially successful.

ENDS

[Full judgment: Royal_Forest_and_Bird_Protection_Society_of_NZ_Inc_v_Buller_Dis.pdf]

© Scoop Media