Clova Bay Residents Association Incorporated v Marlborough District Council

[2016] NZHC 3020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

CIV 2015-406-029 [2016] NZHC 3020

UNDER

the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and

Part 30 of the High Court Rules

IN THE MATTER

of an application for judicial review

BETWEEN

CLOVA BAY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED Applicant

AND

MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL

First Respondent

AND

MARINE FARMING ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED

Second Respondent

Hearing:	On Papers
Counsel:	J C Ironside for Applicant Q A M Davies for Second Respondent
Judgment:	13 December 2016

COSTS JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1]      The second respondent’s opposition to costs is without merit. The proceeding succeeded and the decision was quashed.  It is not appropriate to seek to divide up the case into arguments won or lost.  The second respondent does not identify any unsuccessful aspect that was hopeless or would have significantly affected the case

had it not been argued.

CLOVA BAY RESIDENTS ASSN INC v MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 3020 [13 December 2016]

[2]      Costs apply on the normal basis.  The applicant is entitled to scale costs plus reasonable disbursements.  Costs are joint and several.  No evidence was presented that suggested the second respondent disagreed with the procedural approach of the Council to the consent application or sought a different approach.   In Court, it defended the process fully.   Had I been asked to apportion, it would have been a

50/50 split.

Simon France J