Nelson City Council v Stanton - [2015] NZHC 395

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CIV-2014-442-72 [2015] NZHC 395

BETWEEN
NELSON CITY COUNCIL

Applicant

AND

LEWIS REGINALD STANTON Respondent

In Chambers: On papers

Judgment:

6 March 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS (Leave to appeal)

[1] Mr Stanton and his horse live life on the open road. But even the free- spirited must stop and rest. Mr Stanton has made a point of stopping in Nelson. He relies on “donations” from the public. He likes to stop with his horse and cart in the downtown area. “Donations” are better there. He often parks in metered parking spaces. He will not pay the required parking fee. He also parks in unmetered parking spaces with a time limit. He declines to quit these spaces when his time has expired.

[2] The Nelson City Council has powers to prohibit or restrict the stopping, standing or parking of vehicles on any road under its control.1 It has passed a parking bylaw giving effect to those powers.2 Mr Stanton has received numerous infringement notices. He has incurred fines exceeding $8,800. He refuses to pay
them. He has continued to park in breach of the parking bylaw.

1 Land Transport Act 1998, s 22AB(1).
2 Nelson City Council Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw 2011.

NELSON CITY COUNCIL v STANTON [2015] NZHC 395 [6 March 2015]

[3] The Council therefore sought an injunction under s 162 of the Local Government Act 2002 to restrain Mr Stanton from parking his horse and cart in the city centre in breach of the parking bylaw.

[4] The Council was successful in the District Court, but the injunction was quashed in an appeal to the High Court. The Council now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

District Court decision

[5] In the District Court, Mr Stanton’s first argument was that the bylaw did not apply because of the references therein to “car parking”. He does not drive a car, but a horse-drawn cart. He also contended that the bylaw was vague and should be struck down. Finally, he submitted that the bylaw should be interpreted consistently with his rights and freedoms under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).

[6] Judge Tompkins concluded that the bylaw did apply to Mr Stanton and his cart. Further, the bylaw does not unduly restrict Mr Stanton’s rights under NZBORA. The Judge granted the injunction sought. Its terms were reasonable and would not have a chilling effect on rights and freedoms implicated. The injunction went only so far as was necessary, restricting the current and persistent unlawful parking of the horse and cart.

High Court decision

[7] In the High Court, the injunction was quashed.3 Goddard J found the conclusions reached by Judge Tompkins that the arguments relating to the definition of a vehicle and to NZBORA are “unremarkable and unassailable”. But four factors persuaded the Judge that an injunction was not required or appropriate. First, the injunction was duplicitous. A complete enforcement framework existed…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Nelson City Council v Stanton and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] NZHC 395
Decision Date: 6 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Nelson City Council v Stanton, the Nelson City Council sought an injunction against Mr. Stanton, who had repeatedly parked his horse and cart in breach of parking bylaws, resulting in fines exceeding $8,800 that he refused to pay. The Council's application was initially successful in the District Court, but the injunction was quashed in the High Court. The Council now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on several grounds. The primary legal issues revolve around the availability and appropriateness of an injunction under s 162 of the Local Government Act 2002 to prevent future breaches of a bylaw, especially in light of existing enforcement measures. The High Court found that an injunction was inappropriate, considering the redundancy of the enforcement framework, the repetitive but not continuous nature of the breaches, and the Council's selective enforcement approach.

The court's reasoning in quashing the injunction focused on the redundancy of the enforcement framework, as an infringement regime already existed. The repetitive, yet not continuous, nature of the breaches did not warrant the use of s 162, which targets ongoing breaches. Additionally, the Council's selective enforcement, targeting only the horse and cart, suggested bias rather than a genuine effort to enforce the bylaw uniformly. The court also noted that the injunction would be futile, as existing measures, including imprisonment, were already in place. Given these findings, the Council sought leave to appeal to clarify these legal issues and ensure proper enforcement of the bylaw.

Orders