Case engages significant local interest and public importance: appeal court
New Zealand’s Court of Appeal has extended the time for a grocery company to appeal a decision regarding bike lane implementation due to the issues’ significant local interest to the parties and importance to the general public.
In Foodstuffs North Island Limited v Wellington City Council, [2025] NZCA 164, the applicant grocery company had leasehold interests in Thorndon New World between Molesworth Street and Murphy Street in central Wellington.
The Wellington City Council, the respondent in this case, decided to implement bike lanes on the right sides of those streets. This prompted the applicant to request a judicial review of the city council’s decision.
On 30 April 2024, the High Court refused the grocery’s application for review. The court explained that the city council’s decision was far from one that a reasonable local authority could not have made. The grocery did not appeal this decision.
In a separate case, an application asked for a judicial review of the city council’s decision to reconfigure parking on Thorndon Quay to promote cyclists’ safety. On 15 July 2024, the Court of Appeal granted this application.
The appeal court ruled that the city council’s process veered dangerously close to an unlawful sub-delegation. The appeal court held that the city council’s Planning and Environment Committee breached s. 77(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 and lacked adequate data for an informed perspective of any reasonably practicable options.
On 8 August 2024, the grocery requested a reconsideration of the city council’s decision regarding Molesworth Street and Murphy Street based on the appeal court’s ruling on Thorndon Quay. A week later, the city council refused this request.
On 17 September 2024, the grocery asked for an extension of time to appeal the April 2024 ruling. The grocery’s application came 78 working days after the relevant deadline.
The grocery’s counsel alleged that the city council’s processes for its decision regarding Thorndon Quay were not materially different from its processes for its decision on Molesworth Street and Murphy Street, with both decisions involving the absence of an alternative option before the city council.
The city council’s counsel countered that:
The Court of Appeal of New Zealand granted the application seeking an extension of time. The appeal court deemed an extension in the interests of justice, even though the only issue on appeal revolved around a narrow point.
First, the appeal court accepted that the grocery’s delay in seeking to appeal the April 2024 ruling was relatively significant. However, the appeal court said the issuance of its Thorndon Quay ruling and the parties’ steps after such issuance sufficiently explained this delay.
Second, the appeal court acknowledged the difficulty of weighing the appeal’s merits based on the evidence on the record. But the appeal court noted that it could not find at this point that the appeal had no merit.
Lastly, the appeal court determined that the likelihood of prejudice to the city council would depend on the success of the grocery’s appeal and request for discretionary relief.
