Bright v Auckland Council - [2016] NZHC 1560

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-000538 [2016] NZHC 1560

BETWEEN
PENELOPE MARY BRIGHT

Appellant

AND

AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent

Hearing: 6 July 2016

Appearances:

Appellant in Person
K F Quinn for Respondent

Judgment:

11 July 2016

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 July 2016 at 11.30 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High
Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors: Auckland Council, Auckland
Copy to: Appellant
Media

BRIGHT v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 1560 [11 July 2016]

Introduction

[1] In a judgment delivered on 18 January 2016 in the District Court at Auckland Judge G M Harrison entered judgment for the Auckland Council (Council) against Ms Bright.1 The judgment was for $34,182.56, being the amount of several years’ unpaid rates and accrued penalties.

[2] Ms Bright seeks to appeal that decision.

Procedural background/District Court decision

[3] The Council issued proceedings against Ms Bright in 2011 seeking to recover payment of unpaid rates for the period June 2006 to June 2011. It initially obtained judgment by default. That default judgment was set aside. The Council then sought leave to introduce a fresh cause of action for unpaid rates for the period June 2011 until January 2015 together with an application for leave to seek summary judgment. Judge Harrison granted leave to the Council to add the fresh cause of action in respect of unpaid rates from June 2011 until January 2015 and also granted leave to the Council to bring the application for summary judgment.

[4] Judge Harrison then went on to deal with the substantive issue before him, the application for summary judgment. The Judge noted that he did not understand Ms Bright to challenge either that she was a rate payer nor the amount claimed. The issue was whether she had a defence to the claim.

[5] Judge Harrison then went on to consider the defences raised by Ms Bright, namely that the Council had agreed to a rates postponement, that the Council’s assessments and invoices did not comply with the Local Government (Rating) Act
2002 and that the Council had an improper purpose in issuing the proceedings. Ms Bright argued the Council had issued the proceedings in response to her challenge that the Council had failed to comply with its obligations under the Public Records Act 2005. The Judge rejected the various defences raised and entered summary judgment.

Preliminary issues

[6] Two preliminary issues arise. First, leave is required to bring the appeal out of time. The notice of appeal was not filed with this Court until 10 May 2016. The appeal should have been filed by 16 February 2016. Ms Bright says that she did not receive a copy of the decision until 17 February 2016. She says she then went to the Auckland District Court on 3 March 2016, was advised she had 28 days to file an appeal and it was suggested that she seek an extension from the District Court Judge. On 4 March…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bright v Auckland Council and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NZHC 1560
Decision Date: 11 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Penelope Mary Bright appealed a decision of the District Court at Auckland, entered by Judge G M Harrison, which awarded judgment to the Auckland Council for unpaid rates in the amount of $34,182.56. The appeal was heard by Venning J on 6 July 2016, and judgment was delivered on 11 July 2016. The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the appeal was filed out of time, and if not, whether Ms Bright had a valid defence to the Council’s claim for unpaid rates.

The Court granted leave to Ms Bright to bring the appeal out of time, but declined leave for her to adduce further evidence, which was deemed irrelevant to the appeal. Ms Bright's primary contention was that the Council had not complied with its obligations under the Public Records Act 2005, Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, Local Government Act 2002, and Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. The Court rejected this argument, finding that there was no legal connection between the Council’s obligations under these Acts and Ms Bright’s obligation to pay rates under the Local Government (Rating) Act. The Court also dismissed Ms Bright’s other defences, including that the Council had agreed to a rates postponement and that the information provided on rates assessments and invoices was insufficient.

The Court held that the Council had not agreed to a rates postponement, and that Ms Bright had not made a valid application for rates postponement in accordance with the procedure provided by the Council. The Court found that none of the issues raised by Ms Bright amounted to a defence to the Council’s claim for unpaid rates. Ms Bright’s appeal was dismissed, and the Council was awarded costs on a 2B basis, subject to confirmation by the Council’s counsel that the costs on a 2B basis do not exceed the actual costs incurred by the Council on this appeal.

Orders