Riddiford v Attorney-General

[2012] NZCA 113

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA632/2008
CA666/2011
[2012] NZCA 113

BETWEEN  DANIEL THOMAS SPENCER RIDDIFORD
First Applicant

AND  YVONNE ADA RIDDIFORD
Second Applicant

AND  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Respondent

Hearing:         29 November 2011

Court:             Arnold, Randerson and Stevens JJ

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

Judgment:      28 March 2012 at 10 a.m.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ACA632/2008 and CA666/2011 are struck out.       

BThe applicants are to pay the respondent costs for a standard application on a band A basis plus usual disbursements.

_______________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Arnold J)

1. Contemporaneously with this judgment we are giving judgment in CA48/2010, an appeal arising out of an order for costs made by the Land Valuation Tribunal (the Tribunal) against the applicants (the Riddifords) in favour of the Crown.[1]  This Court gave leave to bring that appeal.[2]

   [1]      Riddiford v Attorney-General [2012] NZCA 112.

   [2]      Riddiford v Attorney-General [2009] NZCA 603.

2. CA632/2008 is an application for an extension of time to bring an appeal against the same decision of the Tribunal as was the subject of the appeal in CA48/2010.  The Crown applied to strike out CA632/2008, on the ground that the Riddifords had already been granted leave to appeal by this Court.  Mr Riddiford did not oppose that course.

3. CA666/2011 is an application for an extension of time within which to file an appeal against a decision of the High Court awarding costs against the Riddifords in favour of the Crown on their unsuccessful appeal against the Tribunal’s valuation decision and costs order.[3]  Initially, the Riddifords filed an appeal (as of right) against that decision, namely CA584/2008.  However, that appeal was deemed abandoned by operation of r 43(3) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 because the Riddifords failed to pursue it in a timely manner.  The Crown opposed the application in CA666/2011, given the deemed abandonment of CA584/2008.

   [3]      Riddiford v Attorney-General HC Wellington CIV-2006-485-833, 27 August 2008.

4. The application in CA666/2011 has, however, been overtaken by events, specifically this Court’s decision in CA48/2010.  In that decision we allow the Riddifords’ appeal and quash the Tribunal’s costs order on the ground that it exceeded the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.  As a result of that decision, we also quash the award for costs made against the Riddifords in the High Court.  It follows that CA666/2011 can now be struck out as being moot.

5. There is an issue as to costs.  As the foregoing description indicates, what was essentially a reasonably straightforward set of appeals (against the Tribunal’s decision as to costs and the High Court’s decision as to costs) has become something of a procedural morass with multiple appeals/applications in respect of the same decisions.  We propose to make a single order for costs in favour of the Crown to reflect the fact that the Crown has been put to unnecessary expense in dealing with these multiple appeals/applications.

Decision

1. CA632/2008 and CA666/2011 are struck out.  The applicants are to pay costs for a standard application on a band A basis to the respondent, together with usual disbursements.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent