A 20-year-old law student has triumphed over Auckland Transport in court, with a judge ruling the installation of three speed bumps and a raised pedestrian crossing was unlawful.
Sean O’Loughlin took a case to the High Court at Auckland, arguing AT had failed to follow the law for the $667,000 works on The Parade at Little Bucklands Beach.
His case centred on the argument that AT focused on speed reduction and safety issues, skipping the legal requirement to weigh the impact on drivers. The only crash involving (minor) injury was due to a speeding public bus, he told the court.
Justice David Johnstone ruled in favour of the student, finding that AT hadn’t genuinely considered the impact on motorists.
In court, AT argued the decision to install the traffic calming measures was lawful, saying the measures were necessary, the agency had consulted, and the resolution to proceed was valid.
An AT spokesman said the council agency is reviewing its decision documentation and processes generally in light of the High Court judgment.
O’Loughlin, a law student at the University of Auckland and long-time resident near The Parade, said his case was not about the speed humps themselves, but rather the process by which they were installed, and community opposition to them.
After the installation of the speed bumps and pedestrian crossing in late 2024, O’Loughlin drew on his legal education to prepare and present his own case for a one-day judicial review in May.
He felt good about taking on AT at a young age and winning.
“There is a lot of public discourse around Auckland Transport, at least within my university friend group, and that is part of why I wanted to do this at my own cost. It is important to hold public decision makers accountable,” he said.
O’Loughlin believed there were potentially wider ramifications from the ruling because AT had relied on a pre-written template claiming the changes would not “unduly impede vehicular traffic”, and did not give any reason behind that.
“You can go on the Auckland Transport website and see the template. It has all the paragraphs pre-written. It’s possible they use it to make other decisions,” he said.
Justice Johnstone noted that a report presented to AT’s traffic control committee contained pre-drafted resolutions - described as a “legal boilerplate” in the judgment.
The report asserted that the traffic calming measures would “not unduly impede vehicular traffic,” even though the rest of the report failed to address or analyse the issue, he said.
“The decision to install the raised crossing and speed humps was taken, and they were installed, without the existence of authorising power; this is, unlawfully,” the judge ruled.
AT was ordered to go back and reconsider the decision properly. If it found the measures did impede traffic, it would have to remove them. If not, they could stay.
Retired law professor Kenneth Palmer praised O’Loughlin’s efforts, saying he deserved an award for “taking on the big guns”.
Palmer said the ruling was an excellent decision, noting it correctly identified the legal basis for approving raised crossings. However, he anticipated AT would uphold its original stance and the crossings would remain in place.
Palmer expressed concern that AT had not seriously considered the legal test of whether the crossings did “not unduly impede vehicular traffic”, instead justifying its decision primarily on safety grounds and the need to slow vehicles.
“The justification should now shift from personal safety to the impact on traffic. That’s what the law requires, and it’s been overlooked,” Palmer said.
“Issues like vibration affecting nearby properties, noise, and trucks banging up and down have been treated as secondary.”
He cited Mission Bay as an example, where four speed bumps were clustered within 200 metres, far more than necessary, in his view. He claimed a wide centre island also forced buses to crawl along the gutter.
“Vehicles are already being slowed down. Giving them another shake just seems ridiculous,” he added.
The $667,000 cost of three humps and a raised crossing comprised:
These costs were provided to the hearing by AT.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.