Sheeran v Masterton District Council - [2025] NZHC 1558

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND MASTERTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKAORIORI ROHE

CIV-2024-435-19

[2025] NZHC 1558

BETWEEN
LEON SHEERAN

Plaintiff

AND

MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL

Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

N D Chapman and L J Goodwin for Defendant Plaintiff (self-represented)

Judgment:

13 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SKELTON

[1] In my judgment issued on 31 March 2025, I dismissed Mr Sheeran’s claim against the Masterton District Council (the Council) for lack of jurisdiction.1 I indicated my preliminary view that the Council is entitled to costs on a 2B basis. I suggested that a modest uplift may be appropriate under r 14.6(3)(b)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the High Court Rules 2016, and reasonable disbursements.2

[2] The parties have been unable to agree costs. The Council now claims scale costs on a 2B basis ($38,240) with a 10 per cent uplift ($3,824) and disbursements ($793) in the total sum of $42,857.

[3] Mr Sheeran has appealed my judgment. His response to the Council’s claim for costs is that it should not proceed until the appeal process has been completed. He requests a stay of the proceeding.

1 Sheeran v Masterton District Council [2025] NZHC 707.
2 At [36].

SHEERAN v MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL [2025] NZHC 1558 [13 June 2025]

Stay of proceeding

[4] Mr Sheeran’s application for stay is made by memorandum. There is no affidavit evidence in support. The grounds for the application appear to be that he has appealed my judgment, he has applied for legal aid in respect of his appeal, and he has applied for a “dispensation of costs” in the Court of Appeal. I understand this to mean a dispensation from paying security for costs in the Court of Appeal.

[5]Rule 12 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 provides:

12 Stay of proceedings and execution

(1)None of the matters referred to in subclause (2) operate as—

(a)a stay of a proceeding in which a decision was given; or

(b)a stay of execution of that decision.

(2)The matters are—

(a)an application for leave to appeal; or

(b)the giving of that leave; or

(c)an appeal.

(3)Pending the determination of an application for leave to appeal or an appeal, the court appealed from or the Court may, on an interlocutory application,—

(a)order a stay of the proceeding in which the decision was given or a stay of the execution of the decision; or

(b)grant any interim relief.

(4)An order or a grant under subclause (3) may—

(a)relate to execution of the whole or part of the decision or to a particular form of execution:

(b)be subject to any conditions that the court appealed from or the Court thinks fit, including conditions relating to security for costs.

(5)If the court appealed from refuses to make an order under subclause (3), the Court may, on an interlocutory application, make an order under that subclause.

(6)If the court appealed from makes an order under subclause (3), the Court may, on an interlocutory application,…

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 Sheeran v Masterton District Council 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: [2025] NZHC 1558
Decision Date: 13 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sheeran v Masterton District Council [2025] NZHC 1558 concerns a claim by Leon Sheeran against the Masterton District Council for lack of jurisdiction. Sheeran had previously appealed against the Associate Judge's decision dismissing his claim, and sought to stay the Council's claim for costs pending the outcome of the appeal. The Court was required to determine whether it should grant a stay of proceedings or execution of the costs order pending the appeal, and if so, on what basis.

The Court examined the grounds for the application for a stay, noting that Sheeran had not applied by way of interlocutory application as required by rule 12 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. The Court also considered whether it would be appropriate to grant a stay that would prevent it from fixing costs on the Council's interlocutory application. The Court found that it would not be appropriate to grant such a stay and declined Sheeran's application to that extent. The Court then turned to the issue of costs, finding that the Council was entitled to an increase on scale costs because Sheeran had contributed unnecessarily to the time and expense of the proceeding. However, the Court did not agree with the Council's calculation of 2B scale costs, finding that the Council's claim for costs for two substantive affidavit hearings was not justified. The Court concluded that a 10 per cent uplift on the scale costs was appropriate, and awarded the Council costs in the sum of $19,717.50 and reasonable disbursements in the sum of $793.

The Court also considered whether it should stay execution of the costs order pending the outcome of Sheeran's appeal. The Court found that the justice in relation to identifying who should be out of pocket for awarded costs in the interim would most often favour the successful party. The Court also found that the Council and its ratepayers would be adversely affected by any stay of execution in that the recovery of costs would be delayed, possibly for some time. Weighing the factors considered, the overall balance of convenience was against ordering a stay of execution of the costs order.

In conclusion, the Court declined Sheeran's application for a stay of the proceeding and/or a stay of execution of the costs order pending the outcome of his appeal, and awarded the Council costs in the sum of $19,717.50 and reasonable disbursements in the sum of $793.

Orders