Company seeks to disqualify law firm partner as chair of expert consenting panel
New Zealand’s Supreme Court has refused leave to appeal requested by an applicant alleging a conflict of interest or apparent bias against the chair of the respondent expert consenting panel, convened under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020.
In Glenpanel Development Limited v Expert Consenting Panel, [2025] NZSC 109, the matter revolved around the issue of whether to disqualify the panel chair due to a conflict of interest or apparent bias.
A judge of New Zealand’s High Court saw no conflict of interest in:
The High Court judge found no question of apparent bias or predetermination where there was no evidence that the applicant’s competitor was interested in opposing the development subject of the proceedings.
The applicant appealed. New Zealand’s Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court judge and declined to disqualify the panel chair based on a conflict of interest or apparent bias.
However, the appeal court allowed the appeal on other grounds. It directed the panel to reconsider the application in view of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc v New Zealand Transport Agency, [2024] NZSC 26.
The applicant requested leave to appeal the appeal court’s decision. The applicant alleged an issue of general or public importance, given that the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 provided for permanent fast-track consenting processes and the appointment of expert panels.
The applicant alleged a live issue since the lawfulness of the panel chair’s conduct might impact the cost amount or require payment to the Environmental Protection Agency under the 2020 legislation’s processes for administrative cost recovery.
The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court noted that the chair has since resigned from the panel and that the 2020 legislation has since been repealed.
First, the Supreme Court saw no question of general or public importance that arose or required a determination in this case.
The Supreme Court accepted that a question of general or public importance might have arisen concerning the tests for apparent bias and conflicts of interest for lawyers acting in a quasi‑judicial capacity as expert consenting panel members.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that this issue was no longer live in this matter, given that the chair would not participate in the panel’s reconsideration.
Next, the Supreme Court awarded no costs because it recognised that the respondent had rightfully. abided throughout
The Supreme Court found that the applicant appeared to have raised the issue of exposure to administrative costs as an afterthought. The Supreme Court noted that it had no information about the criteria applied or the amount potentially attributed to the appeal court’s refusal to disqualify the panel chair.
