Banks v Ports of Auckland Ltd

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA225/2015
[2015] NZCA 150

BETWEEN	CAROLE CHRISTINE BANKS Appellant
AND	PORTS OF AUCKLAND LIMITED Respondent

Counsel:	A R Longdill for Appellant J A Farmer QC and M R Crotty for Respondent
Judgment:	5 May 2015 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF MILLER J
(On Review of Registrar’s Decision)

Security for costs is waived.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The appellant has sought a review of the Registrar’s decision to refuse to waive security for costs on this appeal.
I am satisfied that the application should be granted. I will state my reasons shortly. First, the appeal relates to proposals by the respondent to extend the Bledisloe wharf into the Waitemata Harbour. In the broadest sense it can be described as genuine public interest litigation, relating to the stewardship and governance of public assets and the impact of the extension on the harbour and its users.
Second, this is not a case in which the respondent needs the protection of security. It contends that the appellant has the means to pay costs.
Third, it cannot be said that the appeal is without merit. I differ from the Registrar on this point. The merits are difficult to assess. It is true that there appear to have been good practical reasons to deny interim relief, and the respondent has very recently offered a compromise which its shareholder, the Auckland Council, has accepted. But it still proposes to proceed with part of the work (known as the B2 extension). It appears that work is under way. Further, the substantive merits are relevant too, and the judgment under appeal does not engage them. It must be assumed, for present purposes, that the appeal has some merit.
For these reasons security for costs is waived. The appellant should not take this as an indication that she will escape costs, should the appeal fail.

Solicitors:
Cook Morris Quinn, Auckland for Appellant
Russell McVeagh, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Carole Christine Banks, an appellant, filed an appeal against Ports of Auckland Limited, the respondent, concerning proposals by the respondent to extend the Bledisloe wharf into the Waitemata Harbour. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The primary issue before the court was whether security for costs should be waived on the appeal. The court had to consider the genuine public interest nature of the litigation, the financial means of the appellant, and the merit of the appeal.

The court determined that the appeal related to significant public interest litigation concerning the stewardship and governance of public assets and the impact of the extension on the harbour and its users. The court was satisfied that the respondent did not need the protection of security as the appellant had the means to pay costs. Additionally, the court held that the appeal was not without merit, and the merits were difficult to assess. The court concluded that the appeal had some merit and granted the application to waive security for costs.

The court emphasised that the waiver of security for costs should not be taken as an indication that the appellant would escape costs if the appeal failed. The court provided the necessary reasoning to support its decision and concluded the review of the Registrar's decision.

The court's final orders were that security for costs was waived, and the appellant should not take this as an indication that she would escape costs if the appeal failed. The appellant and respondent were represented by Cook Morris Quinn and Russell McVeagh, respectively.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established