Editor: I. Mallikarjuna Sharma Volume 11: 15-31 March 2015 No. 5-6

(2015) 1 LAW Quake Outcasts v. Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery [NZ-SC: Court Opinion] F-149
[7] The appellants, Quake Outcasts and Fowler
Developments Ltd, issued proceedings for
judicial review (heard together in the High Court)
challenging the lawfulness of the 50 per cent
offers, alleging that they were not made in
accordance with the Act. It was also alleged that
the offers were oppressive, disproportionate and
that they breached the appellants’ human rights.
[8] Quake Outcasts is an unincorporated group of
some 46 6 individual or joint-owners of uninsured
improved properties, or vacant land 7 in the red
zone. Fowler Developments is a property
development company and is the owner of 11
residential sections in Brooklands, which was
zoned red in November 2011. 8
[9] Quake Outcasts and Fowler Developments
largely succeeded in the High Court. Panckhurst J
held that the June 2011 decision creating the red
/Industrial Properties” (3 September 2012) CBC Min (12)
6/3. As the title of the minute suggests, the decision dealt
with offers to insured residential leasehold properties
occupied under perpetually renewable leases on land
owned by the Waimakariri District Council,
commercial/industrial properties and residential
properties with no insurance (vacant land and uninsured
properties with improvements).
6 The High Court and Court of Appeal judgments
record that Quake Outcasts comprises 46 individual
or joint-owners: see Fowler Developments Ltd v
Chief Executive of the Canterbury Earthquake
Recovery Authority [2013] NZHC 2173, [2014] 2
NZLR 54 (Panckhurst J) [Quake Outcasts (HC)] at
[8] and Minister for Canterbury Earthquake
Recovery v Fowler Developments Ltd [2013] NZCA
588, [2014] 2 NZLR 587 (O’Regan P, Ellen France
and Stevens JJ) [Quake Outcasts (CA)] at [9].
However, at the hearing Mr Cooke QC, counsel for
Quake Outcasts, indicated to the Court that there
were 45 in the group. This discrepancy is noted but
is immaterial for present purposes.
7 One or more of the group may have had uninsured
commercial properties but there was no focus in the
argument on the situation of commercial properties.
8 In June 2011 these sections had been zoned orange, being
in an area where further work was required to determine if
remedial work was feasible in the short-to-medium term.
zones was not lawfully made. 9 The Minister’s
announcement of the September 2012 decision
and the 50 per cent offers made pursuant to that
decision were set aside. 10
[10] The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown’s
appeal in relation to the June 2011 decision. 11
The Court of Appeal did not see it as appropriate
to provide relief in respect of the Minister’s
announcement of the September 2012 decision. 12
The September 2012 offer to purchase the
properties of owners of vacant land and owners of
uninsured improved properties in the red zone
was, however, held to be unlawful because of
non-compliance with the Act and in particular s
10 of that Act. 13 The Court of Appeal made a
declaration to that effect. 14 The Court accepted,
however, that there was a rational basis for
distinguishing between property owners on the
basis of their insurance cover. 15
[11] On 5 May 2014, this Court granted leave to
appeal 16 in both cases on the following questions:
(a) Was the establishment of the Residential
Red Zones in Christchurch lawful as being a
9 See Quake Outcasts (HC), above n 6, at [78]. There was a
subsequent costs judgment: Fowler Developments Ltd v
Chief Executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery
Authority [2013] NZHC 2636 (Panckhurst J) [Quake
Outcasts (Costs)].
10
Quake Outcasts (HC), above n 6, at [100].
Panckhurst J directed the Minister for Canterbury
Earthquake Recovery (the Minister) and the chief
executive of CERA to reach a new decision to
purchase the appellants’ properties in accordance
with the principles of the Canterbury Earthquake
Recovery Act 2011 and with regard to the reasons
contained in his judgment: at [102].
11 Quake Outcasts (CA), above n 6, at [133].
12 At [156]-[157].
13 At [153]. The Court of Appeal stated “[w]e prefer to
approach the matter by focusing on the statutory decision
of the Chief Executive to which the requirements of the
Act applied”: at [157].
14 At [167] and [168].
15 At [150].
16 Quake Outcasts v Minister for Canterbury Earthquake
Recovery [2014] NZSC 51.
91
Law Animated World, 15-31 March 2015