There is actually an earlier decision from the New Zealand High Court on the relationship between nuisance and a resource consent given to operate a noisy 24/7 Port operation, where
the Court said "
It would be simplistic to say that because the port company has its position recognised by the relevant planning documents it cannot be the subject of a successful claim for
nuisance". This was actually in the context of a judicial review of the planning permission, where the Port was trying to have the resource consents aligned with its tendency to make noise.
This is Ports of
Auckland v Auckland
City Council [1999] 1 NZLR 600 (not on NZLII, unfortunately).
Barry
From: Jason Neyers [jneyers@uwo.ca]
Sent: Thursday, 22 March 2012 2:25 a.m.
To: obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: ODG: Nuisance from smell
On Behalf of Mark Wilde:
Thanks for this Neil
This is one I’ve been following and I agree with the Court of Appeal. It confirms something which many of us have felt intuitively but has never
quite been pinned down by a specific decision, namely that an environmental permit operates without prejudice to existing common law rights. Rather, it merely removes a statutory obstacle to pursuing an activity....