Trans Tasman Resources Limited v Environmental Protection Authority

[2015] NZHC 893

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV 2014-485-8741 [2015] NZHC 893

UNDER

the Exclusive Economic Zone and

Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal under s 105 of the Act

BETWEEN

TRANS TASMAN RESOURCES LIMITED

Appellant

AND

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY

Respondent

AND

KIWIS AGAINST SEABED MINING INC, ENVIRONMENT DEFENCE SOCIETY, ORIGIN ENERGY RESOURCES (KUPE) LTD ON BEHALF OF KUPE JOINT VENTURE PARTIES, TE RUNGANGA O NGATI KUANUI TRUST, TE OHU KAI MOANA TRUSTEES LTD, FISHERIES INSHORE NZ LTD, NZ FEDERATION OF COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN INC, McDONALD AND BROWN LTD, EGMONT SEAFOODS LTD, TALLEY'S GROUP LTD, SOUTHERN INSHORE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT CO LTD and SEAFORD LTD

Parties

Hearing:

On Papers

Counsel:

H Rennie QC and A Beatson (with Mr Crossley) for Appellant
V Casey and C Haden for Respondent
D Currie and M Heard for Kiwis Against Seabed Mining Inc
N De Wit for the Environment Defence Society
JDK Gardner-Hopkins for Origin Energy Resources (Kupe) Ltd
J Inns for Te Runanga o Ngati Ruanui Trust
H Irwin-Easthope for Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd

J Appleyard for Fisheries Inshore Inc, McDonald and Brown Ltd, Egmont Seafoods Ltd, Talley's Group Ltd, Southern Inshore Fisheries Management Co Ltd and Sanford Ltd

TRANS TASMAN RESOURCES LTD v ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY [2015] NZHC 893 [1 May 2015]

Judgment:                1 May 2015

COST JUDGMENT (NO 2) OF BROWN J

[1]      My judgment of 29 April 2015 proceeded on the basis that the appellant and the respondent had reached agreement on costs.  I inferred that that was so from the statement in para 13 of the appellant’s memorandum of 3 February 2015, that the appellant   accepted   the   respondent   was   entitled   to   apply   for   costs   under HCR 20.12(2)  and  the  appellant  accepted  that  the  quantum  sought  by  the  EPA reflected the application of scale costs, and the email from counsel for the EPA dated

13 February 2015  which  stated  that  the  EPA  did  not  propose  to  file  a  further memorandum on costs.

[2]      An email from counsel for the EPA advises that I have misunderstood the position and that, while the EPA is not aware of any dispute by the appellant that costs are due or as to the quantum sought, no costs have in fact been paid.

[3]      Revisiting the appellant’s memorandum of 3 February 2015, it appears that the  reason  why the  appellant  has  not  paid  costs  to  the  EPA is  because  of  the appellant’s submission that, if the Court was minded to award any costs to other joined parties, then any payment to them would be a factor relevant to the quantum to be awarded to the respondent.

[4]      I do not accept that proposition.  I consider that the respondent is entitled to costs irrespective of whether costs are ordered or agreed in relation to joining parties. Indeed I am surprised that the appellant has not paid the respondent the reasonable costs sought in the EPA’s memorandum of 15 December 2014.

[5]      I make a direction that the EPA is entitled to costs in the sum of $11,172

which is to be paid out of the amount held as security for costs.

Brown J