Riddiford v Attorney-General - [2008] NZCA 542

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA632/2008
[2008] NZCA 542

BETWEENDANIEL THOMAS SPENCER RIDDIFORD AND YVONNE ADA RIDDIFORD

First Applicant
ANDDANIEL THOMAS SPENCER RIDDIFORD

Second Applicant

ANDTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Respondent

CA636/2008
AND BETWEEN DANIEL THOMAS SPENCER RIDDIFORD AND YVONNE ADA RIDDIFORD

First Applicant
ANDDANIEL THOMAS SPENCER RIDDIFORD

Second Applicant

ANDTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Respondent

Hearing:2 December 2008

Court:Glazebrook, Robertson and Arnold JJ
Counsel:D T S Riddiford in person with McKenzie friend R Gunston

M T Parker for Crown

Judgment:8 December 2008 at 4 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AApplication for special leave to appeal interlocutory decision of MacKenzie J of 31 March 2008 is refused.
BWe refrain from considering the application for special leave in respect of the substantive judgment of 23 June 2008 as an application to the High Court for leave to appeal has not been determined.
CThe applicants must pay the respondent costs for a standard application on a Band A basis for a leave application and usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Robertson J)
[1]       These two matters were listed for hearing in the Miscellaneous Motions list.
[2]       Mr D T S Riddiford appeared in each of the matters for his mother and himself as trustees of the land in question, and personally as the lessee of the land in question.
[3]       The applicants sought compensation in the Land Valuation Tribunal under s 290 of the Local Government Act 1974 in respect of a 20 metre wide coastal strip that was set aside as a local purpose reserve.
[4]       There was an application to transfer the initial proceeding for first hearing in the High Court which was refused by Judge Tuohy on 5 April 2004. Following a hearing in June and July 2005, Land Tribunal Judge Ongley and Mr G T Foster determined that the value of the land, taken as at 12 May 1999, was $156,200.
[5]       In a decision as to interest issued on 18 May 2007, the Tribunal ordered that interest be paid at the rate of 11 per cent until 1 August 2002 and thereafter at 7.5 per cent.
[6]       There was an appeal filed in the High Court against all determinations.
[7]       Following a hearing on 17 March 2008, in a reserved judgment of 31 March 2008, MacKenzie J refused the applicants leave to adduce further evidence at the appeal hearing.
[8]       The appeal proceeded to hearing on 5 June 2008 before Ronald Young J and J P Larmer. In a reserved decision of 23 June 2008, the case was dismissed on all grounds.
[9]       There was a subsequent judgment as to costs that was dealt with on the papers. The unsuccessful appellants application for costs was rejected. Costs were allowed in favour of the respondent to a total sum of $11,865.50.
[10]     On 13 October 2008, the applicants sought leave to appeal against:
(a)MacKenzie J’s interlocutory judgment refusing the Riddifords leave to call further valuation evidence; and
(b)the High Court’s substantive judgment on the appeal from the…

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: [2008] NZCA 542
Decision Date: 8 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Riddiford v Attorney-General concerns an application for special leave to appeal the interlocutory decision of MacKenzie J and the substantive judgment of Ronald Young J, both from the High Court. The applicants, Daniel Thomas Spencer Riddiford and Yvonne Ada Riddiford, sought compensation in the Land Valuation Tribunal for a coastal strip set aside as a local purpose reserve. After initial determinations in their favour, the High Court dismissed their appeal. They now seek special leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The court was required to determine whether special leave should be granted to appeal the interlocutory decision of MacKenzie J, which refused the applicants leave to adduce further evidence, and the substantive judgment dismissing their appeal. The court also needed to assess whether the applicants' proposed grounds for appeal were sufficient to warrant special leave.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the applicants had not demonstrated any error in MacKenzie J's approach or identified any issue of principle. They also noted that the applicants had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in appealing MacKenzie J's decision. Regarding the substantive judgment, the court refrained from considering the application for special leave as an application to the High Court for leave to appeal had not been determined. The applicants were found to have no basis for justifying special leave, and the application for special leave was refused. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs for the standard application on a Band A basis for a leave application and usual disbursements.

Orders