Geoffrey Charles Dury and others v Palmerston North City Council and others - SC 91/2007

Civil appeal – Resource Management Act 1991 – application by third respondent (an orthodontist) for consent to use a dwelling in a residential area for a non-residential purpose – proposal failed to comply with conditions of District Plan and required a restricted discretionary resource consent, which Council granted without requiring notification – High Court quashed Council’s consent – Court of Appeal overturned High Court decision and restored resource consent – in the meantime, third respondent had applied for and been granted a second resource consent, subject to more restrictive conditions than the first – whether second consent replaced first consent in toto in accordance with Sutton v Moule (1992) 2 NZRMA 41 – whether third respondent may be deemed to have abandoned first consent by making and proceeding with second application and complying with its conditions – alternatively, whether the two consents coexist and third respondent must comply with the conditions of both – whether the consent that is later in time should prevail – whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that it had no discretion as to the available remedy – whether the Court of Appeal correctly applied the principles of the Discount Brands case ([2005] 2 NZLR 597) in relation to dispensing with public notification – application for stay of execution of Court of Appeal’s costs orders.[2007] NZCA 521 CA 198/06 CA 211/06 20 November 2007