Oral judgment — injunction — wastewater scheme — protest — tapu — tikanga — Local Government Act 2002, ss 162, 232, 316 & 317 — Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1923, s 14 — Māori Purposes Act 1931, s 21 — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 14, 16 & 17 — Local Government Act 1974, s 698(3) — O’Sullivan v Mt Albert Borough Council [1968] NZLR 1099 — Taranaki CC v Hammond [1988] DCR 109 — Stanton v Heke [2014] NZHC 3117 — Auckland City Council v Occupiers of Aotea Square, Auckland Central DC AK CIV-2001-404-002492 — DC Thames Coromandel District Council v Frances Henare & Ors, DC Thames CIV-2010-075-000176 [20 October 2010] — Tauranga City Council v Faulkner [2016] NZHC 1440 — Wadsworth v Auckland City Council [2013] NZHC 413. 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. In the current hearing the plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent interference with the pipeline construction. It submitted that some of the protest incidents had caused damage to its works, in breach of s 232 of the Local Government Act; therefore, the injunction would not infringe on the right of local people to protest. The respondent argued that an injunction would in fact be an unjustified limitation on the right to peacefully assemble, and would also limit access rights to the lake. The Court found that some of the protest incidents had obstructed or interfered with the construction works; however, the plaintiff's application was premised on the belief that there would be similar incidents in the future. The incidents in question had occurred some six months before the current hearing. High Court authorities had stated that injunctions could be made to restrain future events, but the Court considered that for an injunction to be granted the Court had to have reason to believe that offences would occur in future. In this case, the Court found no current risk of future offending. Given the factors of the case, including ownership rights, civil rights and tikanga, the Court found that caution was required. Therefore the best course of action was to adjourn the injunction indefinitely. The Court concluded by observing that any future protest action had to be peaceful and lawful. Judgment Date: 17 July 2024.