Jefferies v Wellington Regional Council

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2012-485-627 [2014] NZHC 839

BETWEEN
ALAN DENNIS JEFFERIES

Appellant

AND

WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

Appellant in person
T J Gilbert for Respondent

Judgment:

28 April 2014

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J (COSTS)

Introduction

[1] These proceedings relate to two abatement notices issued by the Wellington Regional Council (WRC) against the appellant Mr Jefferies. The issue has been the subject of several failed attempts by Mr Jefferies at appellate level, to establish that notices were invalid:

(a) 5 March 2012: in the Environment Court, where the appeal was dismissed and the abatement notices upheld;1

(b)10 May 2013: in the High Court, where I dismissed the appeal and reserved costs;2

(c) 9 September 2013: in the High Court, where I dismissed the application for leave to the Court of Appeal;3 and

1 Jefferies v Wellington Regional Council [2012] NZEnvC 50.
2 Jefferies v Wellington Regional Council [2013] NZHC 1059.

JEFFERIES v WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 839 [28 April 2014]

(d)12 February 2013: in the Court of Appeal, where the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed and costs of that application were awarded to the respondent.4

[2] The parties have filed memoranda on costs relating to my two decisions in these proceedings.

[3] On 5 April 2012 the parties filed a joint memorandum agreeing that the appeal should be categorised as a category 2 proceeding for the purpose of r 14.3 of the High Court Rules.

Submissions

[4] WRC seeks costs of $12,284 for the High Court appeal and $5,174 for the application in this Court for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.5

[5] Mr Jefferies submits that even though the Court of Appeal dismissed his application for special leave to appeal, his position has been “vindicated” by virtue of the Court’s acknowledgement that:6

Mr Jefferies owns a property adjoining the Mangaroa River within the jurisdiction of the Wellington Regional Council.

[6] He says that the Court of Appeal “accepted the importance of legal boundaries, for legal purposes and captured the subtleties of my appeal against the abatement notices.” In light of the Court of Appeal’s judgment he says that the entire process has been a “waste of time” for all courts involved.

[7] He also says that the respondent failed to provide full disclosure of “relevant materials” in an effort to intentionally mislead the courts.

3 Jefferies v Wellington Regional Council [2013] NZHC 2341.
4 Jefferies v Wellington Regional Council [2013] NZCA 15.
5 NB: the respondent filed a supplementary memorandum after mistakenly including an item in their schedule of costs relating to the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
6 Court of Appeal decision, at [3].

Discussion

[8] Mr Jefferies’ submissions are without merit and there is no basis for a departure from the general principle that costs follow the event. WRC succeeded in respect of both proceedings in the High Court and is entitled to costs as set out in the schedules attached to its memorandum of 12 March 2014. There is an order
accordingly.

Williams J

Solicitors:
Luke Cunningham Clere, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court considered the matter of Jefferies v Wellington Regional Council, where Mr Alan Dennis Jefferies, the appellant, contested the validity of two abatement notices issued by the Wellington Regional Council (WRC). The notices pertained to Mr Jefferies’ property adjoining the Mangaroa River within the WRC’s jurisdiction. This case followed multiple attempts by Mr Jefferies to overturn the notices through various appellate courts, all of which upheld the notices’ validity. The Court was tasked with determining the costs associated with Mr Jefferies’ appeals, as both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had already dismissed his appeals.

The legal issues before the Court involved the interpretation of the High Court Rules, specifically rule 14.3, concerning the costs incurred during the proceedings. Mr Jefferies argued that despite the dismissal of his appeals, the Court of Appeal's acknowledgment of the importance of legal boundaries and the subtleties of his appeal indicated that his position had been vindicated. He further contended that the WRC had failed to disclose all relevant materials, aiming to mislead the courts. The Court needed to determine if these arguments warranted a departure from the principle that costs follow the event, which generally means that the losing party pays the winning party's costs.

The Court found Mr Jefferies’ submissions without merit and held that there was no basis for departing from the principle that costs follow the event. Given that the WRC had successfully defended against both the High Court appeal and the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, they were entitled to the costs as detailed in the schedules attached to their memorandum. The Court ruled in favor of the WRC, ordering Mr Jefferies to pay the specified costs.

The final orders of the Court directed that Mr Jefferies pay the costs as outlined in the schedules provided by the WRC. This decision underscores the importance of the principle that costs follow the event and reaffirms the courts’ stance on the validity of the abatement notices issued by the WRC.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	Appellant in person T J Gilbert for Respondent
Judgment:	28 April 2014