Sign In / Register
Probably the most complex case the Environment Court has ever had to deal with – that was the view of Judge Jeff Smith on April 28, as appeals against the granting of resource consent for a giant regional landfill in the Dome finally drew to a close.
The case took 13 solid weeks of submissions, evidence and cross-examination spread over more than 10 months by the six groups fighting the decision – Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, Forest & Bird, Department of Conservation, Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust (NMST), Fight the Tip, Ngāti Whātua Ōrakei/Te Uri o Hau – and applicants Waste Management NZ (WM) and consenting authority Auckland Council.
Over that time, there were several lengthy adjournments, two site visits, behind the scenes negotiations and unexpected developments, not least when NMST did a deal with Waste Management and switched sides in January.
Judge Smith said at the close of the case that the amount of material that he, Judge Melinda Dickey and Commissioners Ruth Bartlett, Glenys Payne and Kevin Prime now had to wade through meant that he could not estimate when they might reach a decision.
“This is what’s called a complex case before the court and there can be no timescale given for the delivery of a decision – it’s as simple as that,” he said. “This is probably the most complex case the court has had.”
Smith said the “hundred-odd” issues they had to be considered were going to require a huge amount of time, which WM’s closing submissions had only added to – while most parties’ summaries amounted to around 25 pages or so, WM counsel Bal Matheson’s weighed in at a hefty 90 pages.
“Unfortunately, your submissions have raised as many issues as they’ve closed, so they have to be addressed, but there is nothing we can do,” he said. “I have other cases, as do the rest of the court – we will just have to deal with it as quickly as we can.”
He added that part of that depended on whether the court could reach a common view on all or some of the key issues, as they looked back over the lengthy, and sometimes delayed, case.
“I’m not saying we won’t progress as quickly as we can, but it will be very much affected by us examining many of the issues you and other parties have raised, and looking back at the transcript,” Smith said.
“We warned you right at the beginning, when you asked for your first adjournment – we’ve lost a clear grip on what’s gone on so we now need to go back and see what was actually said, rather than relying on our memories.”
Judge Dickey agreed, saying the issues raised during the hearing were many and of some complexity, before formally reserving judgement and adjourning the hearing.
She added that the court appreciated the collegial and courteous way in which all parties had behaved throughout.
