Hemi v Waikato District Council
Decision No.  NZEnvC 226
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT
Environment Judge M Haiiand
In The Matterof an appeal under Section 120 of the Resource Management Act 1991
Mr P Lang for the appellant
Dr H Ritchie for herself
Application for costs against party joined under s274 Resource Management Act 1991 (representation at proceedings) — proceedings related to appeal concerning resource consent granted to appellant to build on a boulder spit near a lagoon — respondent opposed on landscape, ecological and cultural grounds — whether respondent brought case in public interest — whether arguments advanced without substance or an abuse of process — principles of awarding costs when opposition brought in wider public interest — appellant submitted total costs incurred were $391,069.
A. Dr. H Ritchie is ordered to pay an award of costs to the sum of $4,500.00 to the appellant.
DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AS TO COSTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
This appeal related to a piece of land on the landward site of an in-filled boulder spit near a lagoon at Te Whaanga owned by the Henii Te Whanau Trust upon which approval was sought to build a family home. In its interim decision 1 the Court granted consent to this application, which was a non-complying activity.
In its next decision 2 the Court confirmed the conditions which should attach to the consent. Costs were reserved. The parties were directed to file applications for costs within 15 working days from the date of decision and any reply was to be filed within a further 5 working days. Both the appellant and Dr Ritchie have responded.
The appellant seeks a contribution to his costs from Dr Ritchie, on the grounds that he has incurred substantial legal and expert witness costs due to Dr Ritchie pursuing her opposition to his appeal after all the other parties had signed consent documentation which would have resolved it without the need for a hearing.
The appeal was heard over 7 days in March 2010 and the appellant submitted he incurred costs and expenses as follows:
• legal costs totalling $93,550.12;
• expert witness costs totalling $263,251.00;
• expenses incurred preparing the expert witnesses' evidence and other materials presented to the Court totalling $30,032.46;
• expenses relating to the preparation and compilation of documentation totalling $4,236.15.
The appellant submitted that the total costs incurred by him after the consent documents were signed amounted to $391,069.73 including GST.
In considering the application for costs, the Court records that it has read and considered the submissions filed by the appellant and Dr Ritchie.
Section 285(1) of the Resource Management Act (“the Act”) enables the Court to order any party to a proceeding to pay the costs and expenses incurred by any other party that it considers reasonable.
Despite the fact that the Court has a wide discretion in relation to awarding costs and expenses, it does not as a matter of general practice allow costs to a successful party, unless there are special circumstances which mean that it would be fairer to do so. 3
The fact that a section 274 party continues an appeal which is thought to be in the public interest is a relevant consideration that is taken into account when determining quantum, 4 but it does not mean necessarily that people who advance public interest cases are immune from costs awards.
In 5 the Court set out a number of criteria that it may take into account when making what is described as a significant award of costs, though Mr Lang submitted that these factors may also be of assistance in deciding whether to award costs at all. The factors are:
(a) Where arguments are advanced that are without substance;
(b) Where the process of the Court is abused;
(c) Where the case is poorly pleaded or presented, including conducting a case in such a manner as to unnecessarily lengthen the hearing;
(d) Where it becomes apparent that a party has failed to explore the possibility of settlement where compromise could have reasonably been expected;
(e) Where a party takes a technical or unmeritorious point of defence.
. The appellant submitted that, “the issue raised by Dr Ritchie was an opportunistic one, not aimed at any public issue or effect on anyone other than the owner...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL