BANKS v PORTS OF AUCKLAND LIMITED CA225/2015 [2015] NZCA 150
Security for costs is waived because the appeal raises genuine public interest issues, the respondent did not need the protection of security in the circumstances, and the appeal is not plainly without merit, so the Registrar's refusal was reversed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- (2015) 22 PRNZ 461
- Parties
- Appellant: Carole Christine Banks; Respondent: Ports of Auckland Limited
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 5 May 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Review of Registrar's Decision on Security for Costs
- Outcome
- Registrar's decision refusing waiver of security for costs reversed; security for costs waived.
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Public Interest Litigation, Interlocutory Relief, Costs Orders
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Carole Christine Banks
Appellant
Ports of Auckland Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Review of Registrar's Decision on Security for Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether security for costs should be waived
- 2 Whether the appeal qualifies as public interest litigation
- 3 Whether the respondent requires protection given the appellant's means
Ratio Decidendi
Security for costs is waived because the appeal raises genuine public interest issues, the respondent did not need the protection of security in the circumstances, and the appeal is not plainly without merit, so the Registrar's refusal was reversed.
Court Disposition
Registrar's decision refusing waiver of security for costs reversed; security for costs waived.
Orders
- Security for costs waived
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
BANKS v PORTS OF AUCKLAND LIMITED CA225/2015 [2015] NZCA 150 [5 May 2015]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA225/2015[2015] NZCA 150BETWEEN CAROLE CHRISTINE BANKSAppellantAND PORTS OF AUCKLAND LIMITEDRespondentCounsel: A R Longdill for AppellantJ A Farmer QC and M R Crotty for RespondentJudgment: 5 May 2015 at 10.30 amJUDGMENT OF MILLER J(On Review of Registrar's Decision)Security for costs is waived.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The appellant has sought a review of the Registrar's decision to refuse to waive security for costs on this appeal.[2] I am satisfied that the application should be granted. I will state my reasons shortly. First, the appeal relates to proposals by the respondent to extend the Bledisloe wharf into the Waitemata Harbour. In the broadest sense it can be described as genuine public interest litigation, relating to the stewardship and governance of public assets and the impact of the extension on the harbour and its users.[3] Second, this is not a case in which the respondent needs the protection of security. It contends that the appellant has the means to pay costs.[4] Third, it cannot be said that the appeal is without merit. I differ from the Registrar on this point. The merits are difficult to assess. It is true that there appear to have been good practical reasons to deny interim relief, and the respondent has very recently offered a compromise which its shareholder, the Auckland Council, has accepted. But it still proposes to proceed with part of the work (known as the B2 extension). It appears that work is under way. Further, the substantive merits are relevant too, and the judgment under appeal does not engage them. It must be assumed, for present purposes, that the appeal has some merit.[5] For these reasons security for costs is waived. The appellant should not take this as an indication that she will escape costs, should the appeal fail.Solicitors:Cook Morris Quinn, Auckland for AppellantRussell McVeagh, Auckland for Respondent