Williams v Department of Environment and Resource Management

In the case of Williams v Department of Environment and Resource Management, the appellants, Williams and others, appealed against the decisions of the Department of Environment and Resource Management, which had denied their applications for water licences. The Land Court had previously dismissed the Department’s application for review of the appellants’ appeal. The appellants were successful in their appeal but had their application for costs dismissed. They sought to appeal the decision on the basis of the Department’s unmeritorious conduct and the court’s discretion in awarding costs.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Department had engaged in unmeritorious conduct as described in section 882(4) of the Water Act 2000, and whether the court should exercise its discretion to order costs, particularly on an indemnity basis. The appellants argued that the Department had acted unreasonably by resisting the appeal, rejecting a Calderbank offer, and engaging in maladministration of previous water licence applications. They also contended that the Department had failed to disclose certain documents and changed expert witnesses during the course of the appeal.

The court found that the Department had indeed engaged in unmeritorious conduct by resisting the appeal despite the overwhelming evidence supporting the appellants' case, rejecting a Calderbank offer, and by maladministration of previous water licence applications. The court held that the Department's failure to disclose certain documents and changing expert witnesses further supported the finding of unmeritorious conduct. Given these findings, the court exercised its discretion to order costs, awarding 70 per cent of the appellants' costs on the indemnity basis. This decision recognised the significant cost consequences of the Department’s failure to properly discharge its responsibilities in the appeal.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was allowed, the order below was set aside, and the Department was required to pay 70 per cent of the appellants' costs of the appeal on the indemnity basis. Written submissions regarding the costs of the appeal were to be filed and served within specific timeframes as outlined in the orders.