Judge urges peace deal in High Court battle over Auckland dog park rules

Tuesday, 24 February 2026

A high court judge has told a court room packed with dog lovers that there should be a better way of solving their stoush with Auckland Council rather than the expense of “throwing the kitchen sink” at a judicial review.

Justice Andrew Becroft questioned the time and money being spent on a two-day judicial review of the Puketāpapa Local Board’s decision last year to remove off-leash status from Monte Cecilia Park in Hillsborough, in the city’s west, a move strongly opposed by a group of devoted dog owners.

“I don’t want to diminish anyone’s emotional attachment to the area or their dogs,” Becroft said in the Auckland High Court, “but you’d think for what is a reasonably small area … that there might be a way of resolving it short of both sides throwing … the kitchen sink at the decision-making?”

“There is vast resource being sunk into this by the council, I just wonder if there isn’t another way of resolving this short of an all out … law attack on a small six-member elected board?”

The section of the park in question is a relatively small natural bowl area, which has long been used as an off-leash dog park. Entry to the park itself remains on-leash only.

Since court action was launched, the disputed section of the park has remained off-leash.

Becroft directed the two sides to try and broker a peace deal, suggesting that perhaps all the park needed was better signage and clearer markings.

“Is there a halfway house to say, ‘let’s look at it in the context of the whole park’? Or is there a way of some form of additional demarcation, short of a permanent fence, that makes clear up to and before the bowl it’s [a] leashed [area]?”

He later suggested that the lack of clear delineation between on and off-leash areas looked “to use a non-legal term, a bit mickey mouse to me”.

Becroft also queried why a planned full review of Monte Cecilia park could not be used as an opportunity to improve safe dog access.

Both parties were urged to regroup on Tuesday evening to see if an “eleventh hour” deal could be struck.

“Sometimes a resolution between parties is going to be better than what the court can provide. And it seems like this is one of those cases,” said Becroft.

Lawyer George Barton, who took up the case on behalf of the dog owners pro bono, claimed in his submission that there had been “multiple administrative law errors” by the local board in making this decision.

The board had failed to take into account the “mandatory relevant considerations”, and failed to consider the availability of alternative off-leash spaces.

Barton also said that the decision by the board was “pre-determined”, a claim that Justice Becroft said was a very big allegation to lay.

“I say in essence that Ms [Ella] Kumar [the former local board chair] was always of a view that this park should be on-leash,” said Barton.

While he did not believe that decision was reached in “bad faith”, he said it was not supported by council staff or data, given public consultation overwhelmingly fell in favour of retaining the status quo.

Council received about 900 responses from the public during the local board's consultation, with 88% against removing the off-leash bowl area. A petition opposing the decision with more than 1000 signatures was also handed to the board.

Becroft appeared unconvinced by the claim the board had a pre-determined position. “I don’t think I’m buying what you’re selling,” he told Barton at one point.

While day one of the hearing was largely devoted to the dog owners’ case, both parties were given the opportunity to present summarised versions of their substantive arguments.

The council’s lawyer, Katherine Anderson KC, urged the court not to think of the “numbers game” - in relation to the consultation data - nor to be swayed by the emotion of the subject matter.

“We’re going to be inviting you to put the passion and the emotion that the dog lovers group is putting before you that we say are not relevant to the core legal principles,” she said.

The board had to make a decision that balanced safety considerations and dog wellbeing, “an in-built tension” in the legislation.

It would be “absolutely extraordinary” for the court to accept the claim of pre-determination, said Anderson.

Most of the board was re-elected at the 2025 local body elections, which Anderson said was proof of democracy in action.

The applicant’s claim that there were limited alternatives for dog owners should be treated with scepticism, said Anderson, who said a number of other off-leash parks were available within three kilometres of Monte Cecilia Park.

The council’s case will be presented in full on Wednesday.