JEFFERIES v WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 839

JEFFERIES v WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 839 [28 April 2014]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYCIV-2012-485-627[2014] NZHC 839BETWEEN ALAN DENNIS JEFFERIESAppellantAND WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCILRespondentHearing: On the papersCounsel: Appellant in personT J Gilbert for RespondentJudgment: 28 April 2014JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J (COSTS)Introduction[1] These proceedings relate to two abatement notices issued by the Wellington Regional Council (WRC) against the appellant Mr Jefferies. The issue has been the subject of several failed attempts by Mr Jefferies at appellate level, to establish that notices were invalid:(a) 5 March 2012: in the Environment Court, where the appeal was dismissed and the abatement notices upheld;1(b) 10 May 2013: in the High Court, where I dismissed the appeal and reserved costs;2(c) 9 September 2013: in the High Court, where I dismissed the application for leave to the Court of Appeal;3 and1 Jefferies v Wellington Regional Council [2012] NZEnvC 50.2 Jefferies v Wellington Regional Council [2013] NZHC 1059.(d) 12 February 2013: in the Court of Appeal, where the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed and costs of that application were awarded to the respondent.4[2] The parties have filed memoranda on costs relating to my two decisions in these proceedings.[3] On 5 April 2012 the parties filed a joint memorandum agreeing that the appeal should be categorised as a category 2 proceeding for the purpose of r 14.3 of the High Court Rules.Submissions[4] WRC seeks costs of $12,284 for the High Court appeal and $5,174 for the application in this Court for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.5[5] Mr Jefferies submits that even though the Court of Appeal dismissed his application for special leave to appeal, his position has been "vindicated" by virtue of the Court's acknowledgement that:6Mr Jefferies owns a property adjoining the Mangaroa River within the jurisdiction of the Wellington Regional Council.[6] He says that the Court of Appeal "accepted the importance of legalboundaries, for legal purposes and captured the subtleties of my appeal against theabatement notices." In light of the Court of Appeal's judgment he says that the entire process has been a "waste of time" for all courts involved.[7] He also says that the respondent failed to provide full disclosure of "relevant materials" in an effort to intentionally mislead the courts.3 Jefferies v Wellington Regional Council [2013] NZHC 2341.4 Jefferies v Wellington Regional Council [2013] NZCA 15.5 NB: the respondent filed a supplementary memorandum after mistakenly including an item in their schedule of costs relating to the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.6 Court of Appeal decision, at [3].Discussion[8] Mr Jefferies' submissions are without merit and there is no basis for adeparture from the general principle that costs follow the event. WRC succeeded in respect of both proceedings in the High Court and is entitled to costs as set out in the schedules attached to its memorandum of 12 March 2014. There is an order accordingly.___________________________Williams JSolicitors: Luke Cunningham Clere, Wellington for Respondent