COROMANDEL MARINE FARMERS V WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2006-419-000877

COROMANDEL MARINE FARMERS V WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2006-419-000877 30 April 2008IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2006-419-000877UNDER The Declaratory Judgments Act 1908 and the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004 IN THE MATTER OF an application for a declaratory judgment by COROMANDEL MARINE FARMERS ASSOCIATION (INC)CIV 2006-404-007466AND UNDER Resource Management Act 1991 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under s299 of the Act BETWEEN COROMANDEL MARINE FARMERS ASSOCIATION INC Appellant AND WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL RespondentCIV 2006-404-007598AND UNDER The Resource Management Act 1991 IN THE MATTER OF an additional appeal on points of law under s305 of the Act BETWEEN THE AUCKLAND YACHT AND BOATING ASSOCIATION INC Appellant AND WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL First Respondent2 AND COROMANDEL MARINE FARMERS ASSOCIATION INC Second Respondent AND I AND M JAMES Third Respondent Hearing: On the Papers Appearances: J K MacRae and A Buchanan for Coromandel Marine Farmers Association Inc. K Parker for Waikato Regional Council P T Cavanagh QC for I and M James R B Brabant and J C Brabant for Auckland Yacht and Boating Association Inc. Judgment: 30 April 2008JUDGMENT (No.2) OF COOPER J ON COSTSThis judgment was delivered by Justice Cooper on 30 April 2008 at 9.30 a.m., pursuant to r 540(4) of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: Solicitors: DLA Phillips Fox, PO Box 160, Auckland Tompkins Wake, PO Box 258, Hamilton McVeagh Fleming, PO Box 4099, Auckland Copies to: P T Cavanagh QC, PO Box 4338, Shortland Street, Auckland RB & JC Brabant< PO Box 106-215, Auckland[1] Following my judgment of 7 March 2008 there is an outstanding issue as to costs between Mr and Mrs James and the Coromandel Marine Farmers Association (Inc.). [2] Counsel for Mr and Mrs James has sought an award in the sum of $6,400, but counsel for the Association claims that only $4,800 should be payable. The claim made by Mr and Mrs James for $6,400 includes amounts (in each case on the basis that the time spent was .6 of a day) for interlocutory steps concerning an application made by the Association under s 303 of the Resource Management Act concerning the record of the Environment Court hearing. [3] Counsel for the Association contends that the total amount of 1.8 days for preparing and filing opposition to the application, preparation for hearing and appearance at the hearing results in an inflated award having regard to the facts that: a) The interlocutory application was made in the context of the Auckland Yacht and Boating Association Inc.'s separate appeal to this Court in respect of which Mr and Mrs James played only a minor part. b) Their counsel filed a three paragraph notice of opposition to the application which simply endorsed the grounds of opposition advanced in the Yacht and Boating Association's notice. c) A four paragraph memorandum had been filed dated 1 June 2007 in which counsel for Mr and Mrs James simply supported the submissions filed by counsel for the Yacht and Boating Association. d) Counsel for Mr and Mrs James took only a minor part in the interlocutory hearing adopting the submissions of Mr Brabant. [4] The suggested award in the sum of $4,800 was based on reducing the time allowed for preparation and filing notice of opposition, and preparation for hearingof the defended application to .2 days in each case and appearance at the hearing of the defended interlocutory application to .4 days. [5] I have not received any further memorandum from counsel for Mr and Mrs James, but on the face of it the points made by counsel for the Coromandel Marine Farmers Association (Inc.) have merit. [6] In the circumstances I award the sum of $4,800 as the costs payable by the Coromandel Marine Farmers Association (Inc.) to Mr and Mrs James.