Daniel Riddiford v Attorney-General - [2014] NZSC 195

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 110/2014
[2014] NZSC 195

BETWEEN

DANIEL THOMAS SPENCER RIDDIFORD
First Applicant

YVONNE ADA RIDDIFORD
Second Applicant

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and Glazebrook JJ
Counsel:	C S Withnall QC for the Applicants M T Parker and J S Andrew for the Respondent
Judgment:	23 December 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the Respondent.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Background

In September 1991, the Riddifords obtained consent for a subdivision of an area of their land containing a farm cottage. As a condition of consent, they were required to set aside an esplanade reserve. The matter of compensation for the esplanade reserve was referred to the Land Valuation Tribunal (the Tribunal) for determination under s 290 of the Local Government Act 1974 (now repealed).[1]
[1]Sections 237E and 237F of the Resource Management Act 1991 now deal with the taking of esplanade reserves and compensation.
The Riddifords’ claim was for some $13.3 million of compensation. In 2005, the Tribunal awarded compensation of $156,200.[2] Following that judgment, the Crown applied for an order for costs and the Riddifords applied for an order for the calculation and payment of interest.
[2]Riddiford v Attorney-General LVT Wellington LVP 1/00, 9 December 2005.
In response to those applications, the Tribunal awarded simple interest on the compensation award from the date of the deposit of the plan.[3] The Tribunal also awarded costs against the Riddifords of $100,000.[4] That sum was deducted by the Crown from the compensation payable.
[3]See Riddiford v Attorney-General LVT Wellington LVP 1/00, 18 May 2007 at [2]–[12]. The Tribunal held that the power to award interest was conferred by s 37(1) of the Land Valuation Proceedings Act 1948.
[4]See [13]–[31].
The Riddifords’ appeal to the High Court on the Tribunal’s valuation and costs decisions was unsuccessful.[5] The Riddifords applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and were granted leave on issues relating to the costs awards.
[5]Riddiford v Attorney-General HC Wellington CIV-2006-485-833, 23 June 2008.
The Court of Appeal held that the award of costs was made without jurisdiction and it was set aside.[6] On 4 September 2014, an application to recall the Court of Appeal judgment was successful and the judgment was recalled solely for the purpose of awarding simple interest at Judicature Act 1908 rates on the sum of $100,000 from 18 May 2007,[7] being the date costs were awarded against the Riddifords by the Tribunal.
[6]Riddiford vAttorney-General [2012] NZCA 112 (Arnold, Randerson and Stevens JJ).
[7]Riddiford v Attorney-General [2014] NZCA 435 (Arnold, Randerson and Stevens JJ) at [5].
In the Court of Appeal recall judgment, the Court said:[8]
In relation to the main issue of interest, we are not willing to accept the appellants’ submission that interest should be awarded on a compound basis at bank rates. In the absence of any specific provision for compound interest and, in the…

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 Daniel Riddiford v Attorney-General 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: [2014] NZSC 195
Decision Date: 23 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was asked to consider an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal in the Riddiford case. The Riddifords sought compensation for a compulsory acquisition of their esplanade reserve, and after a series of proceedings, they were awarded a certain amount of compensation by the Land Valuation Tribunal, and subsequently costs were awarded against them. The Riddifords sought interest on the costs award, and the Court of Appeal eventually awarded simple interest on the costs, not compound interest as the Riddifords had requested. The Riddifords now seek leave to appeal against this decision, specifically the refusal to award compound interest. The legal issues for the Supreme Court to consider were whether the Court of Appeal had the jurisdiction to award interest on the costs and whether compound interest should have been awarded instead of simple interest.

The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal was operating under rule 54 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, not section 87 of the Judicature Act, as the Riddifords had suggested. The Court held that it was open to the Court of Appeal to award simple interest under rule 54, and there was no issue of principle or general or public importance in this case. The Court noted that the interest awarded by the Tribunal on the compensation sum itself was simple interest, and the Court of Appeal was only concerned with interest on the costs award. The Court of Appeal's decision was consistent with other authorities on interest awards in similar cases.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no issue of principle or general or public importance. The Court also awarded costs of $2,500 to the Respondent. The Riddifords' application for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision not to award compound interest on the sum of $100,000 was therefore unsuccessful.

Orders