Ennor v Auckland Council

[2018] NZHC 3007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-404

[2018] NZHC 3007

BETWEEN

BRENDA MARIE ENNOR

Applicant

AND

AUCKLAND COUNCIL

First Respondent

JOHN FREDERICK PARKER and ERIN PATRICIA PARKER

Second Respondents

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

A Webb for Applicant

S Quinn and B Ford for First Respondent R E Bartlett QC for Second Respondents

Judgment:

20 November 2018

COSTS JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 November 2018 at 3.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ………………………….

Solicitors:           Ellis Gould, Auckland

DLA Piper, Auckland Knight Coldicutt, Auckland

ENNOR v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 3007 [20 November 2018]

[1]                 I have an application by the Parkers for costs in relation to this matter. In my substantive judgment, I declined to judicially review the decisions of the Council to grant various consents to Mr and Mrs Parker to complete an expansion of their home and to install an in-ground pool. It is relevant to note for present purposes, however, that I was not uncritical of the Council’s recorded decisions. As I said in my judgment, they were not models of their kind. One consequence of this is that I was required to look beyond the strict terms of the decisions to be satisfied that all relevant matters were considered. While I was satisfied those matters were considered, the applicant cannot be criticised for bringing proceedings in respect of decisions which appeared to be flawed on their face.

[2]                 Against that background I consider the application for costs by Mr and Mrs Parker. It is not clear whether they are seeking costs against Ms Ennor and/or the Council. However, as I indicated in my judgment, I consider that costs should lie where they fall. This reflects the fact that, on one view of it, the success in the matter was shared. The record of the decisions was deficient, but I was satisfied that this deficiency was not sufficiently material to the decisions, and relief ought not to be granted.

[3]                 In respect of the Council, there is no action as between the Parkers and the Council. There is no proper basis for an award of costs as between them. While I appreciate that this will be frustrating for the Parkers, the measure of their success is the same as the Council.

[4]Accordingly, I make no order as to costs.