Williams v Waimate District Council

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

CRI-2013-476-000004 [2013] NZHC 2922

IN THE MATTER OF       an application for costs under the Costs in

Criminal Cases Act 1967

BETWEEN  WILLIAM KEITH WILLIAMS First Appellant

GLENKEITH INDUSTRIES (NZ) LIMITED

Second Appellant

ANDWAIMATE DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent

Hearing:                   2-3 October 2013 (Heard at Christchurch)

Counsel:                  F M Farr and A R Shaw for appellants

S F Quinn for respondent

Judgment:                6 November 2013

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J

Contents

Background........................................................................................................................................ [4] The substantive determination....................................................................................................... [35] Costs application ............................................................................................................................. [37] The appeal........................................................................................................................................ [43] Refusal of leave to cross-examine deponents ................................................................................ [48] Factual findings warranted indemnity costs, and such findings meant WDC acted in
bad faith ........................................................................................................................................... [52] Should the appellants have been found “innocent”? .................................................................... [78] Incorrect comparison of the appellants’ and respondent’s costs ................................................. [81] Costs of claiming costs .................................................................................................................... [91] Costs on the appeal.......................................................................................................................... [94] Summary .......................................................................................................................................... [95]

WILLIAMS v WAIMATE DISTRICT COUNCIL [2013] NZHC 2922 [6 November 2013]

[1] This is an appeal from a decision of Judge J Maze in the District Court at Timaru, delivered on 26 June 2013, which allowed in part the appellants’ application for costs under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (CCC Act).1 That application followed the dismissal of prosecutions brought against the appellants by the respondent (WDC). The judgment ordered $80,000 costs against WDC, but dismissed the application so far as it sought indemnity costs which at that point were put at some $170,000. The appeal is from the Judge’s decision not to award indemnity costs.

[2]      The case provides an abject lesson in the failings of the statutory scheme for regulation  of  building  activities  by  territorial  authorities,  and  indeed  the  Court system, in applying any sense of proportion to the extent of resources that might justifiably be  expended  in  such disputes.    I was  advised  by Mr Quinn  that  the building that is the subject of the unhappy saga has a recent valuation of some

$69,000.  Between them, the parties had expended more than $250,000 in pursuit of the present dispute, before the present appeal.   Making every allowance for the importance of principle, and that no price can be put on protecting the safety of the public and occupants, the resources committed to the dispute are unjustifiable on any basis.  The argument over costs occupied two full days in the District Court, and the appeal before me took a further two full days.  Sadly, it is not an option for me to peremptorily declare that the proceeding has absorbed more than its rationed share of resources and is to be treated as at an end.

[3]      Given that reality, it is necessary to begin with a review of the relatively protracted background to the case.

Background

[4]      The first appellant (Mr Williams) is the alter ego of the second.  The second appellant is the owner of the property at 10-12 Innes Street, Waimate.  In the relevant period, it has been occupied by Mr Williams for his business of motor repairs and as…