Cash for Scrap Limited v Manukau City Council HC Auckland CIV 2005-404-7398

[2007] NZHC 1562

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2005-404-7398

UNDER  the Resource Management Act 1991 ("the

Act")

IN THE MATTER OF     an appeal brought pursuant to s 299 of the

Act

BETWEEN  CASH FOR SCRAP LIMITED Appellant

ANDMANUKAU CITY COUNCIL Respondent

Hearing:         14 November 2006 ( MCC)

15 November 2006 (ARC)

Appearances: A D Banbrook for Appellant

M J L Dickey for Respondent (Manukau City Council)
J C Gordon and C S Knight for Respondent (Auckland Regional
Council)

Judgment:      15 January 2007 at 3:00 pm

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J AS TO COSTS

This judgment was delivered by me on

15 January 2007 at 3:00 pm

pursuant to r 540(4) of the High Court Rules

Registrar /Deputy Registrar

Date…………………..

Solicitors:           Brookfields, P O Box 240, Auckland Fax: [phone] - M J L Dickey Meredith Connell, P O Box 2213, Auckland

Fax: [phone] - J C Gordon/C S Knight

Counsel:            T D Banbrook, P O Box 3600, Auckland

Fax: [phone]

CASH FOR SCRAP LTD V MANUKAU CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2005-404-7398  15 January 2007

ANDIN THE MATTER  of an application to change or cancel interim and final enforcement orders under s 321 of the Act

BETWEEN  CASH FOR SCRAP LIMITED Appellant

ANDAUCKLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent

AND IN THE MATTER  of an application under s 315 of the Act

BETWEEN  WILLIAM VICTOR CONWAY, CAROL MARGARET DOWN, CASH FOR SCRAP LIMITED and MILLINEUM INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Appellants

ANDAUCKLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent

[1]      The respondents, the ARC and the MCC, successfully applied to strike out the appellants’ amended Notice of Appeal, filed in relation to an Environment Court

6 December 2005.   In my judgment 18 September 2006 I granted that application and struck out the amended Notice of Appeal.  The ARC and MCC now apply for costs.

[2]      The appellants’ counsel has filed a memorandum acknowledging that the respondents’ calculations as to costs are correct and that, although the appellants have appealed against my judgment, they cannot oppose the making of costs, although they do not actually consent to a costs order and reserve the right to raise the issue of costs at the appeal.

[3]      I therefore make orders as to costs:

a)        In favour of the ARC of $6,235.00 in accordance with its counsel’s supplementary memorandum 30 November 2006;

b)In favour of the MCC of $2,045.00 in accordance with its counsel’s memorandum 29 September 2006.

P Courtney J