Research Commons
      • Browse 
        • Communities & Collections
        • Titles
        • Authors
        • By Issue Date
        • Subjects
        • Types
        • Series
      • Help 
        • About
        • Collection Policy
        • OA Mandate Guidelines
        • Guidelines FAQ
        • Contact Us
      • My Account 
        • Sign In
        • Register
      View Item 
      •   Research Commons
      • University of Waikato Research
      • Law
      • Law Papers
      • View Item
      •   Research Commons
      • University of Waikato Research
      • Law
      • Law Papers
      • View Item
      JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

      Different kinds of argument for applying property law to resource consents

      Barton, Barry
      Thumbnail
      Files
      Barton property law.pdf
      Published version, 1.191Mb
      Link
       www.rmla.org.nz
      Citation
      Export citation
      Barton, B. (2016). Different kinds of argument for applying property law to resource consents. Resource Management Journal, 2016(April), 1–4.
      Permanent Research Commons link: https://hdl.handle.net/10289/10276
      Abstract
      Two recent Court of Appeal cases present an opportunity for making progress in unravelling some of the puzzles about the extent to which the holder of a Resource Management Act resource consent, such as a water permit, holds property rights. These problems are not unique to the RMA or to New Zealand, and everywhere they involve a difficult interweaving of private law and public law. There is no generally accepted body of law for ascertaining whether the attributes of property ownership attach to permits granted under statutes: B Barton, “Property Rights Created under Statute in Common Law Legal Systems” in A McHarg and others (eds) Property and the Law in Energy and Natural Resources (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010) 80–99. But a useful distinction can be drawn between two different purposes to which property arguments can be put, and it provides a basis on which to reconcile two recent cases, Hampton v Canterbury Regional Council (Environment Canterbury) [2015] NZCA 509, and Greenshell New Zealand Ltd (in rec) v Kennedy Bay Mussel Co (NZ) Ltd [2015] NZCA 374, [2016] 2 NZLR 44.
      Date
      2016
      Type
      Journal Article
      Publisher
      Resource Management Law Association
      Rights
      This article has been published in the Resource Management Journal. Used with permission.
      Collections
      • Law Papers [327]
      Show full item record  

      Usage

      Downloads, last 12 months
      116
       
       

      Usage Statistics

      For this itemFor all of Research Commons

      The University of Waikato - Te Whare Wānanga o WaikatoFeedback and RequestsCopyright and Legal Statement