Society for the Protection of Auckland City and Waterfront Incorporated v Auckland City Council (HC, Auckland, M1031-SW00, 19 September 2000, Morris J)

Notification; standing; merits of claim

1. This case involved an application by AMP Asset Management NZ Limited to demolish existing buildings and construct a new building on a prime site in downtown Auckland. The application proceeded on a non-notified basis and was granted consent. The Society, formed after news of the granting of consent became public, sought to have the decision declared unlawful and to require the Council to publicly notify the application by way of judicial review.

2. Morris J noted the change in the Court 's approach to standing over recent years, stating that in the past the issue was considered as separate, but now the courts concentrate more on the merits of a particular claim than on the standing of a particular person to bring a claim. The Judge approached this case by assessing the merits of the claim put forward by the Society, and in particular noted that the Council officer report on the application recommended that the proposal be publicly notified. Consideration was clearly given to the harm created by denying standing, which would be allowing a potentially incorrect decision to stand.

3. The Society sought a review of the decision granting consent, and this case involved an interlocutory application to strike out the Society 's application for review. The Society itself had been formed after the decisions not to notify and to grant consent had been made.

4. In coming to its conclusion that a broad approach must be taken to standing, the Court considered the decisions in Quarantine, Murray, Moxon and O 'Neill. The move from considering standing as a separate issue to considering it as a part of the merits of the claim itself was emphasised.

5. In accordance with O 'Neill it was held that because the Society 's interest went beyond selfish interests and raised issues that were of genuine importance to the public at large the Society was granted standing. There was no question of a lack of good faith, nor was the complaint frivolous, vexatious or otherwise untenable. The test was whether the applications for strike-out had established that the Society could not establish sufficiency of standing to bring the proceedings. That test was not satisfied, so the application for strike-out was dismissed.