Lau v Osbourne

[2017] NZHC 2874

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2016-404-002913

[2017] NZHC 2874

BETWEEN

AUGUSTINE LAU

Plaintiff

AND

BRENDA OSBOURNE

Defendant

CIV-2016-404-002916

BETWEEN

AUGUSTINE LAU
Plaintiff

AND

BEVERLY PASLOW

Defendant

(Continued over

page)

Hearing:

21 September 2017

Appearances:

Plaintiff in Person

William Potter for Brenda Osborne, Paul Northover and Janet Whiteside
Alicia Murray for Beverly Parslow

Judgment:

22 November 2017

JUDGMENT OF MOORE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 November 2017 at 3:30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar Date:

LAU v OSBOURNE [2017] NZHC 2874 [22 November 2017]

CIV-2016-404-003028

BETWEEN

AUGUSTINE LAU

Plaintiff

AND

PAUL NORTHOVER

Defendant

CIV-2016-404-003066

BETWEEN

AUGUSTINE LAU

Plaintiff

AND

JANET WHITESIDE

Defendant

Contents

Paragraph Number

Introduction.............................................................................................................. [1]

Factual background to the Council’s litigation with Mr Lau............................. [8]

The seven properties.............................................................................................. [9]

The litigation streams.......................................................................................... [10]

(a)     Illegal earthworks and tree removal jury trial....................................... [12]

(b)    Abatement notices................................................................................. [22]

(c)     Enforcement order proceedings............................................................ [27]

(i)387 Ormiston Road..................................................................... [28]

(ii)18 and 32 Weranui Road............................................................. [35]

(iii)88 Fairburn Road........................................................................ [47]

(iv)436 Paremoremo Road............................................................... [57]

Multi-property prosecution.................................................................................. [61]

The present proceedings........................................................................................ [64]

Northover proceeding (CIV-2016-404-3028)...................................................... [65]

Osborne proceeding (CIV-2016-404-2913)......................................................... [68]

Whiteside proceeding (CIV-2016-404-3066)....................................................... [71]

Parslow proceeding (CIV-2016-404-2916)......................................................... [75]

Application for security for costs

Legal principles................................................................................................... [79]

Mr Lau’s submissions.......................................................................................... [88]

(a)     Is there reason to believe Mr Lau will be unable to pay costs if he is unsuccessful? [93]

(b)    How should the Court exercise its discretion under r 5.45(2)?........... [101]

(i)Apparent lack of merit in the proceedings................................ [103]

(ii)Mr Lau’s history of conducting vexatious litigation.................. [111]

(iii)The judicial comments and observations of the

Environment Court.................................................................... [114]

(c)     At what amount should security for costs be fixed?........................... [117]

(d)    Should a stay be ordered?................................................................... [124]

Application to strike out...................................................................................... [126]

Result.................................................................................................................... [130]

Costs...................................................................................................................... [134]

Introduction

[1]    The plaintiff, Augustine Lau, has been the developer and/or property manager of seven properties situated across the Auckland region. He is not the registered proprietor of any. In most instances the owner is resident overseas.

[2] Since mid-2014 Mr Lau has been involved in various streams of litigation with the Auckland Council (“the Council”). These have been in the context of his property activities in breach of the Resource Management Act 1993 (“the RMA”) and the Building Act 2004 (“the BA”). He has been the subject of criminal and regulatory proceedings involving a wide range of alleged unauthorised activities, breaches of abatement notices and enforcement orders. He is also facing two criminal jury trials on related charges in the Auckland District Court, the first of which is scheduled to commence on 27 November 2017.

[3]    In the course of his involvement with the Council he has had dealings with each of the defendants who are either Council employees or contractors engaged to assist the Council in the many matters involving Mr Lau. Most, if not all, are expected to be witnesses…