Riddiford v Attorney-General - [2014] NZCA 435

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA48/2010
[2014] NZCA 435

BETWEEN

DANIEL THOMAS SPENCER RIDDIFORD
First Appellant

YVONNE ADA RIDDIFORD
Second Appellant

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Respondent

Court:

Arnold, Randerson and Stevens JJ

Counsel:

First Appellant in Person
R Birdsall as McKenzie Friend
M T Parker and J S Andrew for Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

4 September 2014 at 2:30pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application to recall the judgment of 28 March 2012 is granted.
BThe respondent must pay interest to the appellant as directed in [5] hereof.
CThe judgment of 28 March 2012 otherwise remains undisturbed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

By a judgment dated 28 March 2012, we allowed this appeal and quashed a costs award made by the Land Valuation Tribunal against the appellants in the sum of $100,000.[1] We also quashed an award of costs made against the appellants in the High Court. We ordered the respondent to pay the appellants usual disbursements incurred in the appeal to this Court.
[1]Riddiford v Attorney-General [2012] NZCA 112.
The appellants have since applied to recall the judgment, principally to seek interest on the costs award of $100,000 from the date it was made on 18 May 2007. The respondent accepts that payment of simple interest should be made at the rates specified under the Judicature Act 1908 but for a reduced period to reflect the respondent’s submission that the appellants did not pursue their appeal expeditiously. If the judgment is to be recalled, the respondent also seeks a reversal of our order quashing the costs ordered in the High Court.
We regret that there has been substantial delay in delivering our judgment to resolve these issues. In relation to the main issue of interest, we are not willing to accept the appellants’ submission that interest should be awarded on a compound basis at bank rates. In the absence of any specific provision for compound interest and, in the light of the inability to award compound interest under s 87 of the Judicature Act, we are satisfied that the proper award is for simple interest. The submission that the relevant legislation was intended to allow “full compensation” does not cause us to alter our view.
Given that the respondent has had the benefit of the $100,000 costs award (by deducting it from the compensation awarded) for the entire period since the date of the award, we do not consider it is appropriate to reduce the period of the award as the respondent has suggested.
Accordingly, our judgment is recalled solely for the purpose of awarding interest. The respondent must pay the appellants simple interest at Judicature Act rates on the sum of $100,000 from 18 May 2007. The applicable rates are:
From 18 May 2007 to 30 June 2008   7.5 per cent
From 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2011  8.4 per cent
From 1 July 2011 until payment  5 per cent
There are several other issues raised by the appellants which we now…

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 Riddiford v Attorney-General 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: [2014] NZCA 435
Decision Date: 4 September 2014 at 2:30pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Riddiford v Attorney-General was an appeal against a decision of the Land Valuation Tribunal and subsequent costs orders in the High Court and Court of Appeal. The appellants, Daniel Thomas Spencer Riddiford and Yvonne Ada Riddiford, sought interest on a costs award of $100,000 from the date it was made on 18 May 2007. The respondent, the Attorney-General, accepted that simple interest should be paid but sought a reduced period to reflect the appellants' delay in pursuing the appeal. The court had to decide whether interest should be awarded on a simple or compound basis, and whether the period for which interest was payable should be reduced. The court also had to consider whether it should revisit the order quashing the costs awarded in the High Court.

The Court of Appeal recalled the judgment of 28 March 2012 to award interest on the costs award. The court held that interest should be awarded on a simple basis at the rates specified under the Judicature Act 1908, and that the period for which interest was payable should not be reduced. The court also held that it was not appropriate to revisit the order quashing the costs awarded in the High Court. The court's reasoning was that there was no specific provision for compound interest, and that the respondent had already benefited from the costs award for the entire period since the date of the award. The court also held that the appellants were not entitled to an award of legal fees or interest on the disbursements ordered.

The Court of Appeal granted the application to recall the judgment of 28 March 2012. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellants simple interest at Judicature Act rates on the sum of $100,000 from 18 May 2007. The applicable rates were 7.5 per cent from 18 May 2007 to 30 June 2008, 8.4 per cent from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2011, and 5 per cent from 1 July 2011 until payment. The judgment of 28 March 2012 otherwise remained undisturbed.

Orders