Burrell Demolition Limited v Wellington City Council

[2012] NZHC 1816

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2010-485-002310 [2012] NZHC 1816

UNDER  the Resource Management Act 1991

AND

UNDER  Section 144 of the Summary Proceedings

Act 1957

BETWEEN  BURRELL DEMOLITION LIMITED AND ALEXANDER JAMES BURRELL Applicants

ANDTHE WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL AND THE WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL

Respondents

Hearing:         24 July 2012

Counsel:         P A Morten for Applicants

S F Quinn for Respondents

Judgment:      24 July 2012

ORAL JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

[1]      On 26 October 2010 Burrell Demolition Ltd and its director, Mr A J Burrell, (the appellants) were convicted in the Wellington District Court on charges brought against them under the Resource Management Act 1991.  The charges related to the way the appellants are said to have operated a landfill business.  The appellants were each fined $15,000 and ordered to pay court costs.

[2]      The  appellants  appealed  against  their  convictions.    Their  appeals  were dismissed by Joseph Williams J in a reserved decision delivered on 22 June 2012.

The appellants are seeking leave of this Court to appeal the High Court judgment to

BURRELL DEMOLITION LIMITED V THE WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL HC WN CIV-2010-485-002310 [24 July 2012]

the  Court  of  Appeal.    The  application  for  leave  to  appeal  is  to  be  heard  by

Joseph Williams J on 17 August 2012.

[3]      The   District   Court   required   the   appellants   to   inter   alia   “cease   the unauthorised discharge of contaminants on to land above 150 metres RL” (above mean sea level).[1]

[1] Wellington City Council v Burrell Demolition Ltd DC Wellington CRI-2011-085-3191, 30

November 2011 at [59(3)].

[4]     On 9 December 2011 Joseph Williams J issued an interim stay of the enforcement orders made by the District Court on terms and conditions which are set out in a memorandum dated 9 December 2011.

[5]      The appellants now seek a continuation of the interim stay pending further order of this Court.   In support of this application the appellants have provided evidence that goes a considerable way to demonstrating:

(1)that their proposed appeal will be rendered nugatory if the interim stay is not continued;

(2)the ability of the first named appellant and the landfill company (C & D Landfill Ltd) carrying on business will be compromised;  and

(3)       a  number  of  demolition  and  earthmoving  companies’  ability  to

operate effectively may also be compromised.

[6]      The Court believes that continuing the interim stay until it can be considered further  by  Joseph  Williams  J  on  17 August  2012  is  the  most  sensible  way  of disposing of the immediate in pass between the parties.

[7]      Accordingly, orders will be made continuing the effect of the interim orders made by Joseph Williams J on 9 December 2011 on the same terms and conditions as were made by his Honour at that time.

[8]      Costs are reserved.

D B Collins J

Solicitors:

Harkness Law Limited, Wellingtonf for Applicants
DLA Phillips Fox, Wellington for Respondents