Reserved judgment — public works — roading project — access agreements — powers of entry onto land — quiet enjoyment — delegation of authority — “occupier” — Public Works Act 1981, ss 4C, 111, 174 & 196 — Resource Management Act 1991 — Public Service Act 2020, sch 6 cl 2 — State Sector Act 1988, ss 28 & 41 — District Court Rules 2014, rr 1.7 & 1.11(1) — High Court Rules 2016, r 11.8A — Bounty Oil & Gas NL v Attorney-General [2010] NZAR 120 — Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution (a firm) [2000] 2 All ER 109 — Carey v McInerey HC Timaru, CP32/87, 11 July 1989 — Attorney-General v Waikato Regional Airport [2002] 3 NZLR 433 — Webster v Taiaroa (1987) 7 NZAR 1 — United Fisheries Ltd v Chief Executive of Ministry of Fisheries [2001] NZAR 707 — Body Corporate Number 212138 v Minister for Land Information DC Auckland CIV-2012-004-2027, 31 January 2013 — New Zealand Pork Industry Board v Director-General of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry [2012] NZHC 888 — Riccarton High School Board of Trustees v Attorney-General HC Wellington CP364/91,16 September 1991 — Bushell and Another v Secretary of State for the Environment (1980) 2 A11 ER 608 — Pengelley’s Marketing Limited & Anors v Attorney General [2000] 3 NZLR 198. The proceedings concerned proposed roading projects in the rural Waikato. Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) and the transport agency Waka Kotahi sought access to various rural properties in order to investigate environmental conditions and determine the best route for the proposed roading. As part of this preliminary work LINZ and Waka Kotahi served entry notices on the first plaintiff, and on various persons who lived and worked on the first plaintiff's dairy farm (the occupiers). The notices allowed persons authorised by the defendant to enter properties to undertake surveys or investigations. The first plaintiff and the occupiers (who therefore also became plaintiffs) challenged the lawfulness of the notices, arguing that they had been improperly issued because the defendant had not properly delegated authority to the agent (the ministerial delegate) who had issued them. The Court found that the Minister of Land Information in 2009 had not correctly delegated to the Chief Executive of LINZ the power to issue entry notices. When attempting to delegate his powers, the Minister had referred to the wrong section of the State Sector Act, thus mistakenly retaining for himself the power to issue the notices. The agent had no power to issue the notices, and they were therefore unlawful. In case it was wrong to reach this conclusion, the Court considered the process undertaken by the defendant before issuing the notices. In considering whether to issue the notices, the defendant had commissioned a series of reports. The Court found that the reports incorrectly stated that the plaintiffs had not cooperated with the defendant's request to access the property. In fact, the plaintiffs had been negotiating with the defendant on entry, and had made reasonable requests for information. Also, in authorising the notices, the ministerial delegate was over-dependent on the reports, did not make independent decisions, and did not adequately consider the differing interests of the plaintiffs. The ministerial delegate had not followed the correct process to issue the notices. The notices were unlawful. Judgment Date: 30 May 2022