Coromandel Watchdog of Hauraki (Inc) v Minister of Finance

COURT OR TRIBUNAL

High Court of New Zealand

DATE FILED (OR FIRST HEARING DATE)

08/06/2020

LITIGATION TYPE

Project Approval - Mitigation

SUBJECT MATTER

Other

REVIEW TYPE

Judicial review

SUMMARY

(Lexis Catchwords & Digest)

Administrative law — Judicial review — Minister of Finance — Relevant considerations

Application for judicial review. Second respondent Canadian gold mining company operating in New Zealand acquire three areas of farmland totalling 178 hectares for development of new tailings pond. Sought consent from first respondent Minister. Minister of Finance and Associate Minister of Finance (Ministers) granted consent. Applicant challenges grant of consent. Finding that applicant did not establish that first respondent failed to take relevant considerations in granting consent and had applied wrong legal test. Finding that applicant liable to pay the respondents' costs. Application dismissed.

[35] The Society says the Ministers erred in law by either applying the wrong legal test or by failing to consider the adverse effects arising from Oceana Gold’s proposed acquisition. Those detriments include the effects of climate change, the inherent unsustainability of extractive mining processes, and the permanent conversion of productive land to a toxic waste dump.

CASE DOCUMENTS

Coromandel Watchdog of Hauraki (Inc) v Minister of Finance [2020] NZHC 2345