Ngati Apa v Attorney-General CA173/01

[2006] NZCA 429

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA173/01

BETWEEN  NGATI APA, NGATI KOATA, NGATI KUIA, NGATI RARUA, NGATI TAMA, NGATI TOA AND RANGITANE Appellants

AND  ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND OTHERS Respondents

Court:  Anderson  P, Glazebrook and Hammond JJ Counsel:  A S Butler and M Stephens for Appellants

T J Warburton for Crown

Judgment (On the papers):     13 July 2006

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (COSTS)

There will be no order for costs on the application resolved by this Court in its

judgment of 5 December 2005.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Hammond J)

Introduction

[1]      On 5 December 2005, sitting as Judges of the High Court, we directed that the bill of costs in dispute in this proceeding be referred to the Wellington District

Law Society for revision under s 146 of the Legal Practitioners Act 1982.

NGATI APA & ORS V A-G & ORS CA CA173/01  13 July 2006

[2]      We further directed that the costs of the revision itself were to be in the discretion of the Wellington District Law Society.

[3]      We do not know what the outcome of that revision has been. [4]     We reserved costs on the application to this Court.

[5]      Subsequently,  counsel  for  Te  Runanga O Muriwhenua  has  sought  costs, pursuant to the leave reserved.

[6]      Counsel for  Muriwhenua suggests that  his  interests should  have  costs of

$1,500 to $2,000.

[7]      The Crown has  filed  a  memorandum in response,  which asserts that  the Crown should not have to pay any costs on this matter.  It maintains that there were delays in getting this matter resolved, which were not of the Crown’s making.  The Crown submits that costs should lie where they fall.

[8]      Events have followed a most unusual course in this proceeding, which finally led to the resolution of the matters which appears by the judgment of this Court of

5 December 2005.  There were difficulties in this matter, not least that four of the original five members of the Bench which heard the substantive appeal have ceased to be members of the Court of Appeal.   The parties were unable to resolve their differences, or a mechanism for resolving them.  Ultimately this Court, essentially of its  own  motion,  directed  the  mechanism  which  it  ordered  in  the  judgment  of

5 December 2005.   That mechanism was evolved for the mutual benefit of both parties.

[9]      In all the circumstances of this matter, we consider that  costs should  lie where they fall, and we so direct.

Solicitors:

Russell McVeagh, Wellington for Appellants

Crown Law Office, Wellington