Analysing Judicial Review in Auckland’s Flood Buyout Decisions

The Core of Their Legal Argument

The Deacons argue not that the Council owes them a buyout, but rather that the decision-making process itself was flawed. Their lawyer states that the case is “more about [the Council] adopting the wrong process, using the wrong facts, and not treating people equally or similarly.”

This reflects the essence of judicial review: it does not reassess the merits of a decision, but examines how that decision was made. Their argument rests on three key grounds:

1. Incorrect or Inconsistent Application of Criteria

Their property was reportedly initially assessed as Category 3, then later reclassified as low-risk Category 1 due to changes in how “island houses” were treated when surrounding properties were bought out. The couple argue that the revised criteria were applied incorrectly or unfairly.

2. Reliance on the Wrong Facts

The homeowners commissioned an independent hydrologist who assessed the property as meeting Category 3 thresholds. The Council disagreed. Their position is that relevant evidence was overlooked or minimised.

3. Unequal Treatment Compared With Neighbours

Two neighbouring homes were bought out, and most houses on the street have been removed. They argue the Council’s assessment of their home does not align with how similar properties have been treated.

These issues go to the heart of administrative fairness — whether a public body has acted consistently, rationally and with proper regard to the evidence before it.

What a Judicial Review Can Achieve

If successful, a judicial review does not force the Council to purchase the home. Instead, the Court may require the Council to reconsider its decision correctly, using the proper criteria, lawful process and relevant evidence.

For homeowners, this can be significant. A fresh decision made lawfully may lead to a different outcome.

Guidance for Homeowners in Similar Situations

Many storm-affected Aucklanders have expressed frustration with buyout classifications, especially where neighbouring properties receive different treatment. For those considering next steps:

1. Gather Independent Technical Evidence

Flood modelling, hydrological reports and engineering assessments can be powerful in demonstrating risk levels.

2. Request Clarity on Classification Criteria

Ask the Council for the exact basis of your category, including any changes to policy that affected your property.

3. Document Inconsistencies

If adjacent or comparable properties have been classified differently, record this — consistency is a central requirement in public decision-making.

4. Consider Formal Review Options Early

The Council’s dispute resolution pathways are limited and often confidential. Judicial review is a separate and more transparent avenue, but must usually be taken promptly.

5. Seek Legal Advice Before Escalating

Because judicial review focuses solely on process, not the merits, early legal input can help determine whether the criteria for review are realistically met.

A Broader Issue for Auckland

As this One News article notes, this is the first judicial review of Auckland’s $1.2b flood buyout scheme. Its outcome may influence not only the Deacons’ position but also others “in the same boat,” potentially shaping how future disputes are handled.