Lau v Auckland Council
[2017] NZHC 2491
•11 October 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2016-404-003225 [2017] NZHC 2491
BETWEEN EE KUOH LAU (AKA AUGUSTINE
LAU) Appellant
AND
AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent
Hearing: 10 October 2017 Appearances:
Appellant in person
B A Watts for RespondentJudgment:
11 October 2017
JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J
This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 11 October 2017 at 4.30 pm
pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar / Deputy Registrar
Date………………………...
LAU v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 2491 [11 October 2017]
[1] Mr Lau has applied to stay proceedings brought in this Court under CIV-
2016-404-2752 and, possibly, under CIV-2016-404-3225.1
[2] The application has its genesis in enforcement orders made by the Environment Court under the Resource Management Act 1991 in respect of properties at 32 Weranui Road, Waiwera2 and 387 Ormiston Road, Flat Bush.3
Mr Lau lodged appeals in this Court against both decisions. In April 2017 Hinton J struck out the appeal brought in respect of 387 Ormiston Road as a result of Mr Lau’s failure to pay security for costs.4 Woodhouse J dismissed the appeal in
relation to 32 Weranui Road.5 In doing so the Judge expressly dismissed Mr Lau’s
application for a stay.6
[3] The current application was brought on the ground that Mr Lau has now filed proceedings against the Auckland Council, the Mayor of Auckland and the Prime Minister. The statement of claim in these new proceedings, which Mr Lau handed up during the course of the hearing, make vague and disjointed assertions that are difficult to follow and seeks judgment against the Council of between $5m and
$10m. Mr Lau asserts that all other current proceedings should be stayed “in order not to damage any evidence on site during the hearing of these four new proceedings”.
[4] The application for stay in CIV-2016-404-2752 is opposed by the Council on the ground that since Woodhouse J dismissed Mr Lau’s previous application for stay the matter has been determined in this court, which can now take no further steps. No appeal was brought against Woodhouse J’s judgment and nor has Mr Lau applied for leave to appeal it.
[5] The Council appeals the application in CIV-2016-404-3225 on the ground that not only have the proceedings been struck out but the enforcement order subject
1 The reference to CIV 2016-404-3225 was crossed out in the intituling but the wording of the application suggests that it is intended to encompass it.
2 [2016] NZEnvC 212 Auckland Council v Lau, Environment Court File No ENV2016-AKL-102.
3 [2016] NZEnvC 251 Auckland Council v Mao, Environment Court File No ENV2016-AKL-251.
4 Minute of Hinton J, 23 March 2017 in CIV-2016-404-3225 and sealed order dated 3 May 2017.
5 Lau v Auckland Council [2017] NZHC 1010.
6 At [48].
of the appeal has now been fully implemented and there would therefore be no utility in a stay, even if Mr Lau were able to have to the proceedings reinstated.
[6] Mr Lau appeared not to have considered the points raised in the Council’s notice of opposition and submissions, but during the course of the hearing did acknowledge Hinton J’s order striking out his appeal in the CIV-2016-404-3225 proceeding and Woodhouse J’s decision dismissing the stay application in the CIV-
2016-404-2752 proceeding. As Mr Watts, for the Council, rightly pointed out, had Mr Lau taken the time to read the Council’s notice of opposition and submissions filed in advance of the hearing he would have realised that his application must fail.
[7] I dismiss Mr Lau’s application. I order costs in favour of the Council on a 2B
basis.
P Courtney J
0