Independent Māori Statutory Board v Auckland Council

In the High Court of New Zealand, the Independent Māori Statutory Board sought to appeal a decision made by the Auckland Council regarding the Auckland Unitary Plan. The core dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 and the Resource Management Act 1991. The Independent Māori Statutory Board argued that the Council had not properly considered Māori interests in the Unitary Plan, while the Auckland Council defended its decision based on the recommendations of the Independent Hearings Panel. Several other parties, referred to as the s 301 parties, also participated in the proceedings, aligning themselves with the Auckland Council's stance.

The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of statutory provisions and the extent to which the Auckland Council had adequately considered Māori interests in the Unitary Plan. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Auckland Council's decision was legally sound and whether the Independent Māori Statutory Board had grounds to appeal the Council's decision. Additionally, the court needed to assess the appropriate allocation of costs among the parties involved in the appeal.

Justice Wylie, in his judgment, dismissed the appeal brought by the Independent Māori Statutory Board and ruled that the Auckland Council and the s 301 parties, with the exception of Dr. Palmer, were entitled to their costs and reasonable disbursements. The court noted that while there was a common interest among the s 301 parties, they had not acted in concert or taken identical positions throughout the proceedings. However, the court found that there was no compelling reason to deviate from the High Court Rules, which generally discourage multiple sets of costs in cases where defendants could reasonably have joined in their defence. Consequently, the court decided to award one set of costs on a 2B basis, split between Democracy Action and Federated Farmers, with the former receiving two-thirds of the costs and the latter receiving one-third. Democracy Action was also awarded its claimed disbursements of $751.

In summary, the court ruled that the Auckland Council's decision was legally sound, and the Independent Māori Statutory Board's appeal was without merit. The court ordered the allocation of costs as specified, ensuring that Democracy Action and Federated Farmers received a proportionate share of the awarded costs, while Democracy Action also received its claimed disbursements.