Cooke v Valuers Registration Board

Case [2015] NZHC 2815


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-1821 [2015] NZHC 2815

UNDER

Sections 4(1) and 4(5), Judicature

Amendment Act 1972

IN THE MATTER

of the Valuers Act 1948

BETWEEN

KENNETH ROBERT COOKE Plaintiff

AND

VALUERS REGISTRATION BOARD First Defendant

JOHN REID Second Defendant

Hearing: 12 November 2015

Counsel:

Appearance:

RKP Stewart for first defendant
JH Whitehead for second defendant

KR Cooke, plaintiff in person

Judgment:

12 November 2015

JUDGMENT OF FAIRE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 November 2015 at 4:45 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:           Izard Weston, Wellington

DAC Beachcroft New Zealand Ltd, Auckland

And To:             RC Cooke, Auckland

Cooke v Valuers Registration Board [2015] NZHC 2815 [12 November 2015]

Contents

The proceeding .......................................................................................................[1] The applications for security for costs ...................................................................[5] The opposition........................................................................................................[6] The court’s approach to security for cost applications ...........................................[7] The threshold issue............................................................................................... [11] Background ..........................................................................................................[12] Analysis ................................................................................................................[21] Orders ...................................................................................................................[30] Costs .....................................................................................................................[31]

The proceeding

[1]      The plaintiff has filed this proceeding which invites the court to judicially review a decision of the Valuers Registration Board, notified by letter dated 11 June

2015 and in respect of a complaint the plaintiff made by letter dated 17 August 2014 to the New Zealand Institute of Valuers.

[2]      The plaintiff, by implication, pleads that the second defendant, who the New Zealand Institute of Valuers appointed to investigate and report to the Valuers Registration  Board  in  respect  of  a  complaint  involving  a  registered  valuer, Mr GJ Clapcott of Albion Banks Valuations Ltd:

(a)       Failed to meet the requirements of s 32(1) of the Valuers Act 1948;

and

(b)      Produced a report which was not of a sufficient quality to discharge

the second defendant’s professional duty of care.

[3]      The plaintiff seeks orders that:

(a)      The Valuers Registration Board’s decision not to hold an inquiry into the plaintiff’s complaint about the second defendant’s investigation and report to the Valuers Registration Board be set aside;

(b)Effectively a declaration by the court as to the essential requirements of an investigation in terms of s 31(1) of the Valuers Act 1948;

(c)       Effectively  a  declaration  by  the  court  as  to  whether  the  second

defendant’s report meets the requirements of the Act;

(d)Effectively  a  declaration  by  the  court  as  to  whether  the  second defendant discharged his professional duty of care when he submitted his report to the Valuers Registration Board; and

(e)      Effectively a declaration by the court as to whether the Valuers Registration Board properly exercised its statutory powers of decision and properly discharged its professional duty of care in arriving at its decision.

[4]      The plaintiff filed his statement of claim on 12 August 2015.

The applications for security for costs

[5]      The first and second defendants applied respectively on 10 and 18 September

2015  for  orders  for  security  for  costs.    Directions  for  the  disposal  of  those applications were made by Peters J in a minute of 24 September 2015, including the allocation of this fixture.

The opposition

[6]      The…

Continue reading Cooke v Valuers Registration Board

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Cooke v Valuers Registration Board [2015] NZHC 2815
Case
[2015] NZHC 2815
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cooke v Valuers Registration Board involved a plaintiff, Kenneth Robert Cooke, challenging a decision by the Valuers Registration Board not to hold an inquiry into a complaint he made regarding the investigation and report submitted to the Board by John Reid, a valuer appointed to investigate the complaint. Cooke sought a judicial review of the Board's decision, arguing that Reid had failed to meet the requirements of the Valuers Act 1948 and that his report did not meet the professional duty of care. The first and second defendants applied for orders for security for costs, which were opposed by Cooke on several grounds, including the importance of the issues raised and the public interest in having them determined.

The court examined the legal issues surrounding the application for security for costs, including the threshold issue of whether Cooke was unable to pay the defendants' costs if unsuccessful, and the exercise of the court's discretion in ordering security for costs. The court found that the threshold position was met, as Cooke was impecunious and already significantly indebted to the Valuers Registration Board for costs from a previous judicial review proceeding. The court also considered the public policy principles underlying issue estoppel and the likelihood of success of Cooke's current judicial review application, which was considered to be remote.

The court concluded that it was an appropriate case to order security for costs, and ordered Cooke to pay $18,000 to the Registrar of the High Court as security for costs for the first defendant and $1,500 for the second defendant. Pending payment of the security, the proceeding was to be stayed. Upon payment of the security, the Registrar was to place the proceeding in the judicial review list and notify the parties of the listing. The defendants were entitled to costs based on Category 2 Band B and in respect of a ¼ day hearing, plus disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.