222. Environment Court appeals can be made on any issues related to an application. Case management processes are often necessary to focus on the key issues that are indispute.
223. Due to the restrictions on the range of orders Environmental Judges and Environmental Commissioners sitting alone can make, relatively uncomplicated issues are often heard by a full environmental quorum. This places a large burden on the Court’sresources.
224. Judicial conferencing (JC) and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) are effective processes in most appeals to resolve matters before the court or narrow issues in contention. These are not as widely used as they could be as the Environment Court lacks the ability to require a party to attendADR.
225. Currently, the Environment Court has the power to waive fees. However, neither the RMA, nor the Resource Management (Forms, Fees, and Procedure) Regulations 2009 contain specific fee waiver criteria or the way in which court fees are to be postponed, reduced or refunded.
226. The proposal will support efficient and speedy resolution of appeals through a package of process changes as itwill:
· limit the scope of appeals to matters raised in the appellant’ssubmission
· strengthen the Environment Court’s powers to require ADR where appropriate to either come to full resolution or narrow issues in contention before a Court hearingby:
o making it mandatory for an Environment Judge, as soon as practicable, to consider whether to convene a conference (this decision would be made by the EnvironmentJudge)
o making it compulsory for all parties in any proceedings to attend an ADR session unless the Environment Court judge agreesotherwise
o requiring that, when a representative attends on behalf of a party required to attend, the representative must have delegated authority to make decisions on theirbehalf.
· provide greater flexibility in the use of Environment Court decision-makers by enabling Judges and Commissioners sitting alone to make a wider range oforders:
o the Principal Environment Court Judge will have the ability to delegate the powers of the Environment Court to an Environment Judge sittingalone
o the Principal Environment Court Judge or the presiding Environment Judges will have the ability to delegate any powers of an Environment Court Judge under section 279(1)-(4) to an Environment Commissioner. Powers can only be delegated after a conference has been held where an Environment Judge has determined that is it appropriate for an Environment Commissioner sitting alone to exercise those powers. The Environment Judge may provide any terms and conditions to the exercising of the powers as they seefit.
· add a requirement that the Environment Court, when determining an appeal relating to a decision on a consent application, must have particular regard to the consent authority’s decision and the outcome of any pre-hearingmeetings
· enable fees to be waived by broadening the scope of the section 360 regulations relating to the Environment Court to enable the provision of waiver criteria for the Environment Court registrar to waive, reduce or postponefees.
227. No alternatives to these proposed options were considered. The proposals are drawn in part fromdiscussionoftheissuesbytheEnvironmentCourtintheEnvironmentCourtAnnual
Review by Members of the Court 2014, and partly from the Productivity Commission’s 2013 Report Towards Better Local Regulation. Although the status quo does not create any major problems, the proposals are likely to improve the efficiency of Court processes by reinforcing the existing case management practices that are working well when they are applied with the agreement of all theparties.
228. The proposalswill:
· reinforce the Environment Court’s current case management and ADRprocesses
· provide a further ability for the Court to require parties to focus on the key issues in an appeal and to explore potential settlementoptions
· more effectively deploy judicial resource in a proportionateway.
229. These changes will enhance the Environment Court’s ability to address appeals in a proportionate, timely and cost effective manner, and will therefore contribute to the outcome of increased flexibility and adaptability of Court processes anddecision-maker
