From the April issue…
Commenting on the decisions in RJ Davidson Family Trust v Marlborough District Council  NZHC 52 and Environmental Defence Society Inc v The New Zealand King Salmon Co Ltd  NZSC 38,  1 NZLR 593, Martin Williams, Barrister, Shakespeare Chambers, challenges the approach to the application of pt 2, under s 104 of the Act on the grounds that when Parliament moved in 1993 to make all other s 104 considerations “subject to Part 2”, it meant exactly that. Part 2 of the RMA is fundamental, and was intended by Parliament to have an “overarching” position.
To read the full article click here.
To access the full journal, please click here.