Easton v Wellington City Council HC Wellington CIV 2010-485-678

[2010] NZHC 2103

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2010-485-678

UNDER  section 299 of the Resource Management

Act 1991

IN THE MATTER OF     an appeal on questions of law on an

Environment Court decision

BETWEEN  BENJAMIN MORLAND EASTON Appellant

ANDWELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Respondent

CIV-2010-485-748

AND UNDER                 section 8 of the Judicature Amendment Act

1972

IN THE MATTER OF     a judicial review of a Wellington City Council decision to revoke the pedestrian status of Manners Mall

BETWEEN  BENJAMIN MORLAND EASTON Applicant

ANDTHE WELLINGTON MAYOR First Respondent

ANDWELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Second Respondent

ANDOPUS INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS

Third Respondent

Judgment:      24 November 2010

COSTS JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J

EASTON V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL AND OTHERS – COSTS HC WN CIV-2010-485-678  24

November 2010

[1]      I refer to my substantive decision in this matter.

[2]      At [93] I observed as follows:

There remains the issue of costs on these applications.  As the Council has succeeded that there would not appear to be any reason for it not to be awarded costs in its favour on a 2B basis.  Given the history of the matter, there may be little or no purpose in making such an order.  If the Council considers there is some utility in such an order, it may apply to the Court, and Mr Easton may respond.

[3]      The Council now applies for an order of 2B costs against Mr Easton.  It has provided a schedule of costs.  That schedule appears in order, except that I do not consider  that  second  or  subsequent  counsel  should  be  certified  in  terms  of  the

23 June 2010 hearing.

[4]      Mr Easton opposes that order of costs.

[5]      He does so first by reference to his ongoing concerns with safety issues, and to a safety test that he advises the court the Tramways Union proposes to carry out.  I do not consider that is a relevant ground to oppose an order of costs.

[6]      He also opposes the order of costs on the basis that my decision is to be appealed and “no costs order should be made until the expiry of the appeal date or otherwise until its judgment is released”.

[7]      In these circumstances, the fact that Mr Easton has or will appeal my decision is not a reason for costs not to be awarded.

[8]      On that basis, I make an award of costs in favour of the Council in terms of the Appendix to Mr Stevens’ memorandum of 11 November 2010, less the 0.125 allowance included at 4.16 of that memorandum.

“Clifford J”

Solicitors:

Phillips Fox, Wellington for Respondent