Oral judgment — injunction — infrastructure — waste water scheme — protest — tapu — tikanga — land ownership — bylaws — Local Government Act 2002, ss 162, 181, 232 & Sch 12 — Local Government Act 1974, ss 315(1)(a), 317 & 318 — Trespass Act 1980, ss 3 & 4 — Rotorua District Council Traffic Bylaw 2018, cls 18.1 & 20.1 — Rotorua District Council General Bylaw 2017 — Rotorua District Council Bylaw 2018 — Rotorua District Council v Rotokākahi Board of Control [2024] NZDC 16999 — Rotorua District Council v Rotokākahi Board of Control [2024] NZDC 24369 — O’Sullivan v Mount Albert Borough Council [1968] NZLR 1099 — Taranaki County Council v Hammond [1988] DCR 109 — Stanton v Nelson City Council [2014] NZHC 3117 — Chief Executive Land Information New Zealand v Te Whanau o Rangiwhakaahu Hapu Charitable Trust [2013] NZCA 33. The plaintiff 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 that caused the construction workers to fear for their safety. Therefore the plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent interference with the pipeline construction. This was the third in a series of judgments. In the first, the Court had declined to order an injunction because it found that there was no current risk of offending. In the second, the Court had found that there were grounds for an injunction, but did not order one because it wanted more information on the ownership of a road whose route the pipeline was to follow. The Court also wanted to give the parties time to discuss mitigation measures. New evidence produced at the current hearing established the route of the road, but failed to define the boundary of the lake. On balance however the Court was satisfied that the road was the property of the plaintiff. Further, the pipeline was to be placed on the side of the road further from the lake, to minimise the risk that the pipeline would be placed on land that was within the lake boundary. Next the Court examined local bylaws, and determined that structures were not to be placed and vehicles were not to be parked in certain areas covered by traffic bylaws. The Court had considered previous injunctions sought to be too broad, and in the current hearing stated that the parties should develop a system to allow authorised persons to access the lake whenever they wanted to. The Court also made several other changes to the proposed injunction to make it workable. Given that certain protest activities had breached the Local Government Act, the Court found no reason to delay issuing an injunction, and therefore made an injunction restraining any damage or obstruction to the plaintiff's works. Judgment Date: 6 November 2024.