Jefferies v Wellington Regional Council

[2014] NZHC 839

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