Federated Farmers of New Zealand Incorporated v Northland Regional Council

Case [2016] NZHC 2776


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CIV 2015-488-0064 [2016] NZHC 2776

UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal from a decision of the
Environment Court under s 299 of the Act

BETWEEN

FEDERATED FARMERS OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED Appellant

AND

NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

P R Gardner for Appellant
G J Mathias for Whangarei District Council
R J Somerville QC and R A Makgill for Soil & Health
Association of NZ Inc

Judgment:

18 November 2016

COSTS JUDGMENT OF PETERS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Peters on 18 November 2016 at 4.30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ...................................

Solicitors:           Lewis’ Law, Cambridge

Thompson Wilson, Whangarei

Counsel:            R J Somerville QC, Dunedin

R A Makgill, Auckland

Copy for:           Federated Farmers of New Zealand, Auckland

FEDERATED FARMERS OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 2776 [18 November 2016]

[1]      On 31 August 2016, I issued judgment dismissing an appeal by Federated Farmers of New Zealand Incorporated (“Federated Farmers”) against a decision of the  Environment  Court  concerning  provisions  of  a  regional  policy  statement proposed by the Northland Regional Council.1

[2]      Three parties opposed the appeal: Northland Regional Council, Whangarei District  Council  and  Soil  &  Health  Association  of  New Zealand  Incorporated (“Soil & Health”).

[3]      Although  Northland  Regional  Council  does  not  seek  costs,  Whangarei District Council and Soil & Health each seek costs on a 2B basis.2    Soil & Health also seeks an allowance for the costs of second counsel and disbursements.

[4]      Federated Farmers submits that I should refuse costs altogether, or award a reduced sum, on the ground that it brought its appeal in the public interest.3     If, contrary to that submission, costs are awarded, then Federated Farmers submits that it should not have to pay a sum greater than  that due had there been  a single respondent.

[5]      I do not accept Federated Farmers’ submission as to the motivation for its appeal. As Kós J said in Horticulture New Zealand v Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council,  Federated  Farmers  represents  a  substantial  primary  sector  group.4      It brought these proceedings because it was in its members’ interest to do so.  For that reason I do not propose to decline or reduce costs.

[6]      That said, I am not persuaded to award more than one set of costs, as the submissions advanced in opposition to the appeal might well have been made by one party.

[7]      Having considered the parties’ memoranda, I award one set of costs on a 2B

basis,  totalling  $10,348.00.     I  record  that  there  was  some  quibbling  in  the

1      Federated Farmers of New Zealand Inc v Northland Regional Council [2016] NZHC 2036.

2      The Northland Regional Council does not seek costs.

3      High Court Rules, r 14.7(e).

4      Horticulture New Zealand v Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council [2013] NZHC 2853.

submissions as to whether Federated Farmers should be required to pay costs in respect  of  a  case  management  conference  which  the  parties  prepared  for  and expected but which in fact was not held.  The total amount claimed for this item is

0.3 of a day and it is trivial.  Costs are considered in the round and I do not propose to make a reduction for such a sum.

[8]      Two-thirds of the costs are to be paid to Soil & Health as its submissions were the most comprehensive and one-third is to be paid to Whangarei District Council.

[9]      I do not certify for Soil & Health’s second counsel but Federated Farmers is to pay Soil & Health the expenses or disbursements claimed in items 2, 3 and 4 of Annexure A to Soil & Health’s submissions dated 18 October 2016.

..................................................................

Peters J

Details
AGLC
Federated Farmers of New Zealand Incorporated v Northland Regional Council [2016] NZHC 2776
Case
[2016] NZHC 2776
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Federated Farmers of New Zealand Incorporated appealed a decision of the Environment Court, which had ruled on provisions of a regional policy statement proposed by the Northland Regional Council. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 31 August 2016. Opposing the appeal were the Northland Regional Council, Whangarei District Council, and Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Incorporated. While the Northland Regional Council did not seek costs, both the Whangarei District Council and Soil & Health sought costs on a 2B basis. Soil & Health also sought an allowance for the costs of second counsel and disbursements. Federated Farmers argued that it should not be required to pay more than one set of costs, or be required to pay costs at all due to the public interest nature of the appeal. The court rejected this submission, stating that the appeal was brought in the interest of the members of Federated Farmers, not the public, and that the submissions made by the respondents were effectively the same, regardless of whether they came from one or two parties. The court awarded one set of costs on a 2B basis, totalling $10,348.00. Two-thirds of the costs were to be paid to Soil & Health as its submissions were the most comprehensive, and one-third was to be paid to Whangarei District Council. The court did not certify for Soil & Health’s second counsel but Federated Farmers was to pay Soil & Health the expenses or disbursements claimed in items 2, 3 and 4 of Annexure A to Soil & Health’s submissions dated 18 October 2016.

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.