Buddle Findlay is pleased to have assisted Wellington City Council (the Council) with its successful defence of an application brought by the Wellington Civic Trust (the Trust) for judicial review of the Council's decision to demolish the City to Sea Bridge.
Bridie McKinnon (partner) and Brooke Marriner (senior solicitor), both members of Buddle Findlay's Wellington litigation team, appeared in the High Court hearing on behalf of the Council. The Buddle Findlay team also included Natasha Wilson, Esther Bennett and Beth Fitchett.
The Trust argued that the Council had failed to identify and assess all reasonably practicable options for strengthening the Bridge, as required by s 77 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA); made a mistake of law and/or fact by classifying the Bridge as importance level 3 (IL3) for seismic assessment purposes; and failed to comply with the principles of consultation under s 82 of the LGA (other grounds of review were abandoned).
Grice J declined the application, finding that:
- The Council did not fail to identify and assess all reasonably practicable options in the circumstances. Council officers undertook extensive work to identify all options, put those before the Council, and provided sufficient information to inform Council of the material issues, including what options were reasonably practicable
- The Council made no mistake of law or fact in relying on reports categorising the Bridge as IL3: The Council was aware of debate on the issue between experts, was adequately informed, and had a reasonable basis to rely on the advice provided to it by professionals
- The public consultation undertaken by the Council met the statutory requirements under the LGA. Ample opportunity was provided for the public to present their views to the Council, and it was for the Council to determine the appropriate scope and process for consultation, guided by the provisions of the LGA
- The Council was entitled to rely on advice provided by its experts, including peer-reviewed engineering advice and quantity surveying cost estimates.
The Court observed that the overarching theme of the Trust's submissions was that the Council was too conservative in its approach, did not take a commercial approach to seismic risk, and needed to be more creative in its solutions. The Court held that such arguments were unsuitable for challenge by way of judicial review: they were matters of policy and properly left to Council.
Bridie McKinnon commented "we are pleased to have assisted the Council in the successful defence of its position in this judicial review. The decision to demolish the Bridge and this judicial review generated a lot of public interest and engagement, and it's great to see the judgment confirm that the Council's decision-making process complied with its statutory obligations."
A copy of the decision can be found here.
