INTHE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY ITE KOTIMATUA 0 AOTEAROA ‘TAMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE cxy-2017-404-002792 INTHEMATTER of judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 [BETWEEN MIRIAM CI Planttt ‘MENTS. AND AUCKLAND CITY COUNCILLORS First Defendants AUCKLAND COUNCIL. Second Defendant Hearing 31 January 2018 ‘Appearances: Plainff'n person I Wilson for Defendants Minute 31 January 2018, MINUTE OF TOOGOOD 5 Sirs ‘MerdiConel, Akin copy to: Palit(1) This proceeding was filed as an appeal against the decision of Judge (Cunningham on 7 November 2017, by minute issued by a Deputy Registrar of the Distiet Court at North Shore, tha the District Court has no jurisdiction to hear [Ms Clements claims in that Court against the individually-named councillors cited asthe respondents. [2] Having received a helpful memorandum fom counsel for the Auckland Council, I considered that two issues needed tobe resolved in this mat (@) Whether the appeal should more appropriately and efficiently be ‘constituted asa judicial review proceeding under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016; and (©) Whether the Auckland Couneil should more appropriately be the responding part instead ofthe individual councillors [3] Ms Clemens’ claims concern a decision by the Auckland Council ~ of which ‘cach ofthe named respondents is ancleted councillor to sell era public propery, ramely carpark situated at 40 Anzac Street, Takapuna. It seems clear that ‘Ms Clements proceeding is being brought in something ofa representative capacity, ‘having regard to the affidavits either swom oF drafted by other eltizens expressing ‘cancer about the decison [4] Iwas apparent from the inal reluctance of Ms Clements to agree that the proceeding could be reconstituted asa judicial review that she is ecncermed to sheet home individual responsibility to certain counillrs for the roles they are alleged to have played in the Coureil's decision, But Ms Clements acvepted that the essential ‘purpose of her proceeding inthe District Curt, and the principal mater she wants this ‘Court to resolve, is whether the Council's decision o sell the land ws lawful [5] Afterdiscusson, Ms Clements was persuaded thatthe mos eficient means for addressing her substantive concer and those of her supporters weuld be a judicial review application challenging the validity of the Council's decision. The challenge is brought on the basis, among other things, of predetermination by individualcouneillots, and as [ apprehend, allure to engage in appropriate consultation with those claiming to represent the publi intrest. [6} An appeal against Judge Cunningham's decision would only resolve the question of wheter the proceeding as constituted in the Distriet Cour, was within that court's jurisdiction, While determining the nature ofthe proceeding would necessarily aaddress the isues mised by Ms Clements, resolving the jrisdtional question would not take any futher the determination by the Court of the validity of the Counei’s decision to sel, (7) nthe end, Ms Clements quite properly agreed that this Courtshould be seized ofthe ultimate question so that it ean be resolved as expeitiously as possible, in the iterests ofthe Council and te citizens of Auckland, [8] Afterhearng from Mr Wilson forthe Council Iwas satisfied that jurisdictional and procedural issues should not be allowod to delay the Court's determination of the substantive issues, and T accepted the proposition thatthe proceeding, such as it is, should be reconstituted as an application for judicial review, [9] Itis clear that Ms Clement’ pleadings will need tobe recast so thatthe issues are more succinctly and clearly aiculated. The Council and the councillors concemed ae entitled to clarity to assist them to understand the arguments they must meet MrWilson helpfully suggested that discussions between Ms Cements and the Council's legal advisors might asst, but he acknowledged thatitis cel that formal applicetion for particulars will be required. [10] indicated to Ms Clements that it would not usually be constered appropriate {or individual coun and thatthe role played respectively by individual councillors cond remain under sematiny even if the Council itself was the only defendant. Pending further rst be named as defendants ina judicial review proceeding, consideration by Ms Clements, and argument if necessary, I propose to leave the ‘named counsillos as defendaats fr the time being, but is necessary that the Couneil should be joined asa defendant.