Haddock v Thames-Coromandel District Council - [2017] NZHC 1926

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2017-419-000008 [2017] NZHC 1926

IN THE MATTER of the Building Act 2004

AND

IN THE MATTER

of a prosecution pursuant to s 168 of the
Act

BETWEEN

ANTHONY JOHN HADDOCK Appellant

AND

THAMES-COROMANDEL DISTRICT COUNCIL

Respondent

Hearing: 23 June 2017

Appearances:

Appellant in Person
P Moodley for the Respondent

Judgment:

14 August 2017

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 August 2017 at 3:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar
Date:

Solicitors/Counsel:
Brookfields, Lawyers, Auckland

Copy to:
The Appellant

HADDOCK v THAMES-COROMANDEL DISTRICT COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 1926 [14 August 2017]

Introduction

[1] On 13 February 2017, following a defended hearing in the Thames District Court, Anthony John Haddock was convicted on one charge of failing to comply with a notice to fix issued by the Thames-Coromandel District Council (Council) and fined $15,000 with costs of $1,000.1 He now appeals against both conviction and sentence.

Factual background

[2] Mr Haddock lives at 133 Paul Road, Tairua (the property). He is registered as proprietor of the land under the Land Transfer Act 1952.

[3] On 21 January 2016, a Council enforcement officer, Andrew Fletcher, visited the property to ascertain whether there had been a breach of the Building Act 2004 (the Act) in response to a complaint received by the Council.

[4] Mr Fletcher observed that a house had been relocated to the property. It was on new foundations. Decks and a basement had been constructed, and sheds erected. The following services had been installed:

(a)       A grey water system for grey waste matter; (b)           A composting toilet for black wastewater; (c)     A tank supply for potable water;
(d)      A low pressure hot water cylinder; (e) Solar panels; and
(f)       Two smoke detectors.

1 Thames Coromandel District Council v Haddock [2017] NZDC 2782; Thames Coromandel
District Council v Haddock [2017] NZDC 2916.

The house was, however, not connected to a power supply provided by a network provider.

[5] On 5 February 2016, Mr Fletcher returned to the property to serve Mr Haddock with a notice to fix under ss 164 and 165 of the Act. The notice to fix required Mr Haddock to apply for a certificate of acceptance pursuant to s 96 of the Act. It noted this process might require him to apply for and obtain a building consent for any items of non-compliance with the building code. In the alternative, the notice to fix required he remove all unconsented building work, including all services, and apply for a building consent to reinstate the work pursuant to s 40 of the Act.

[6] Mr Haddock refused to physically accept the notice to fix, but it was clearly brought to his notice. While Mr Fletcher was at the property, Mr Haddock wrote and handed him a letter which stated that he did not accept the notice to fix until the Council could prove its claim of ownership and jurisdiction. He…

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.

Continue reading Haddock v Thames-Coromandel District Council

Details

AGLC: Haddock v Thames-Coromandel District Council [2017] NZHC 1926
Case: [2017] NZHC 1926
Decision Date: 14 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Anthony John Haddock appeals against both conviction and sentence in the High Court of New Zealand. He was convicted in the Thames District Court of failing to comply with a notice to fix issued by the Thames-Coromandel District Council (Council) and fined $15,000 with costs of $1,000. The legal issues for the court to decide were the validity of the Council’s jurisdiction, the adequacy of the disclosure process, and the sufficiency of evidence to prove that native title had been extinguished. The court found that the Council was entitled to issue the notice to fix, that the disclosure process was adequate, and that the onus of proof was on Mr Haddock to show that native title had not been extinguished. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, but the appeal against sentence was allowed, reducing the fine to $5,000 and maintaining costs of $1,000.

Orders