Riddiford v Attorney-General - [2009] NZCA 603

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA353/2009
[2009] NZCA 603
BETWEENDANIEL THOMAS SPENCER RIDDIFORD AND YVONNE ADA RIDDIFORD

First Applicants
ANDDANIEL THOMAS SPENCER RIDDIFORD

Second Applicant

ANDTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Respondent

Hearing:1 December 2009

Court:William Young P, Chambers and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:Applicant in person

R B Chan for Respondent

Judgment:16 December 2009 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is granted with respect to the following questions:
(1) Did the Land Valuation Tribunal have jurisdiction to award costs in the sum it did?
(2)Was the Tribunal’s award of costs excessive?

B Costs on this application are reserved.

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Chambers J)

Application for leave to appeal
[1]        Daniel Riddiford and his mother, Yvonne Riddiford, obtained scheme plan approval in 1991 to subdivide their farm. As a condition of the subdivision, the relevant local authority required a coastal strip of the farm to be set aside as a local purpose reserve under s 289 of the Local Government Act 1974 (“the LG Act”). When compensation for the reserve could not be agreed, that issue was referred to the Land Valuation Tribunal under s 290 of the Act. The Tribunal fixed the compensation at $156,200: Riddiford v Attorney-General LVT WN LVP1/00 9 December 2005. Mr Riddiford thought that figure far too low; he had sought compensation of over $13 million. Subsequently, on 18 May 2007, the Tribunal ordered the Riddifords to pay to the Crown a contribution of $100,000 towards its costs on the Tribunal hearing.
[2]        The Riddifords appealed to the High Court against the Tribunal’s decisions. Ronald Young J and Mr J P Larmer in large part dismissed that appeal: HC WN CIV‑2006‑485‑833 23 June 2008. The Riddifords were still dissatisfied. They applied to the High Court for leave to appeal to this court, but Ronald Young J declined that application on 22 May this year. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
[3]        The criteria for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal are set out in s 18A(2) of the Land Valuation Proceedings Act 1948 (“the LVP Act”). The first criterion is “whether any question of law or general principle is involved”. Mr Riddiford identified six questions which he said merited this Court’s attention. The other criteria under subs (2) are the importance of the issues to the parties, the amount of money in issue, and such other matters as in the particular circumstances the Court thinks fit. As to the application of these criteria, see Chief Executive of Land Information v Luke [2008] NZCA 43.
The proposed questions
Question 1
[4]        The first question was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to award costs against a party to the proceeding in favour of the Crown. Mr Riddiford submitted it did not have jurisdiction. Mr Riddiford’s argument, at least on the basis on which he presented it, is unsustainable. There is no doubt that the Tribunal does generally have the power to award costs:…

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: [2009] NZCA 603
Decision Date: 16 December 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Daniel Riddiford and his mother, Yvonne Riddiford, sought leave to appeal against the High Court's decision in relation to the valuation of land set aside as a reserve. The Land Valuation Tribunal had fixed the compensation at $156,200 and subsequently ordered the Riddifords to contribute $100,000 towards the Crown's costs. The Riddifords were dissatisfied with both the amount of compensation and the costs award. They appealed to the High Court, which dismissed their appeal in large part. The Riddifords then applied to the High Court for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal but were refused. They now seek leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issues were whether the Land Valuation Tribunal had jurisdiction to award costs in the sum it did and whether the award was excessive. The Riddifords argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to award such costs, and if it did, the award was unreasonable. The Court considered the statutory basis for the Tribunal's powers and the historical context of the 1903 scale of costs. The Court held that the Tribunal did have jurisdiction to award costs, but the Riddifords could challenge whether the 1903 scale, which limited the award to $600, continued to apply. This question, if answered in the Riddifords' favour, would substantially reduce the costs award. The Court also noted that the High Court had clear jurisdiction to award costs to the Crown under the Land Valuation Proceedings Act 1948.

The Court granted leave to appeal on the two costs questions but declined leave on the remaining questions as they did not meet the statutory criteria for appeal. The Riddifords were reminded to file a notice of appeal within 20 working days if they wished to proceed. Costs on the application for leave to appeal were reserved.

Orders