Oral judgment — injunction — wastewater — infrastructure — protest — tikanga — Treaty of Waitangi — local government decision-making process — duty of consultation — "road" — Local Government Act 2002, ss 4, 14, 81, 82, 162 & 232 — Local Government Act 1974, ss 315, 317 & 318 — Rotorua District Council v Rotokakahi Board of Control [2024] NZDC 16999 — Wadsworth v Auckland City Council [2013] NZHC 413 — Stanton v Nelson City Council [2014] NZHC 3117 — O’Sullivan v Mount Albert Borough Council [1968] NZLR 1099 — Taranaki City Council and Hammond [1988] DCR 109 — Stanton v Nelson City Council [2014] NZHC 3117 — New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 — New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1989] 1 NZLR 142. The applicant Council was attempting to construct a wastewater scheme. The scheme was to involve the construction of a pipeline close to a lake which was of high significance to local Māori. Construction began, but was soon disrupted by protests over the route of the pipeline. Therefore the applicant sought an injunction to prevent interference with the pipeline construction. It submitted that the construction was lawful, and that it had consulted the respondent. It would not commit to an alternative route for the pipeline, and wanted to resume construction as soon as it could. The respondent was opposed to the pipeline's route, and argued that an injunction would infringe its members' right to protest and restrict their access to the lake. The Court found that protest action had significantly increased in recent months, and that some elements of the protest posed a safety risk and were a violation of the Local Government Act. Further, the Court found that no special circumstances applied to prevent an injunction being issued, and that there was no need to delay the issue in the interests of justice. However the Court decided not to finalise injunction orders until various steps occurred, including the applicant taking steps to determine the ownership of land underneath a public road close to the pipeline route. The Court also observed that some clauses of the injunction sought were too broad and were draconian in that they excluded people from accessing areas where they should be allowed to go. Judgment Date: 9 October 2024.