CASH FOR SCRAP LTD V MANUKAU CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2005-404-7398
Because the respondents successfully had the amended notice of appeal struck out and the appellants acknowledged the correctness of the respondents' cost calculations (while reserving rights on appeal), the Court exercised its discretion to award costs to the Auckland Regional Council and Manukau City Council in the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-3306b0de_8b12_42d2_8983_6d83e792a67b.pdf
- Parties
- Appellant: CASH FOR SCRAP LIMITED; Respondent: MANUKAU CITY COUNCIL; Respondent: AUCKLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL; Appellant: WILLIAM VICTOR CONWAY; Appellant: CAROL MARGARET DOWN; Appellant: MILLINEUM INVESTMENTS LIMITED
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 7 August 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Resource Management Act 1991 S299 / Costs Application Following Strike Out of Amended Notice of Appeal
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to respondents following successful strike out
- Legal Topics
- Strike Out, Costs, Enforcement Orders, S299 Appeal, S321 Application
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
CASH FOR SCRAP LIMITED
Appellant
MANUKAU CITY COUNCIL
Respondent
AUCKLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL
Respondent
WILLIAM VICTOR CONWAY
Appellant
CAROL MARGARET DOWN
Appellant
MILLINEUM INVESTMENTS LIMITED
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Resource Management Act 1991 S299 / Costs Application Following Strike Out of Amended Notice of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether respondents were entitled to costs after successfully striking out the amended notice of appeal
- 2 Appropriate quantum of costs to award
- 3 Whether appellants' acknowledgment affected entitlement to costs
Ratio Decidendi
Because the respondents successfully had the amended notice of appeal struck out and the appellants acknowledged the correctness of the respondents' cost calculations (while reserving rights on appeal), the Court exercised its discretion to award costs to the Auckland Regional Council and Manukau City Council in the specified amounts in accordance with the respondents' memoranda.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to respondents following successful strike out
Orders
- In favour of the ARC of $6,235.00 in accordance with its counsel's supplementary memorandum 30 November 2006
- In favour of the MCC of $6,045.00 in accordance with its counsel's memorandum 29 September 2006.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CASH FOR SCRAP LTD V MANUKAU CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2005-404-7398 7 August 2007IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2005-404-7398UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991 ("the Act") IN THE MATTER OF an appeal brought pursuant to s 299 of the Act BETWEEN CASH FOR SCRAP LIMITED Appellant AND MANUKAU CITY COUNCIL Respondent Hearing: 14 November 2006 (MCC) 15 November 2006 (ARC) Appearances: A D Banbrook for Appellant M J L Dickey for Respondent (Manukau City Council) J C Gordon and C S Knight for Respondent (Auckland Regional Council) Judgment: 7 August 2007 at 4:00 pmJUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J AS TO COSTSThis judgment was re-issued by me on 7 August 2007 at 4:00 pm pursuant to Rule 12 of the High Court Rules Registrar / Deputy Registrar Date. Solicitors: Brookfields, P O Box 240, Auckland Fax: (09() 379-3224 – M Dickey Meredith Connell, P O Box 2213, Auckland Fax: (09) 336-7629 – J Gordon/C KnightCounsel: T D Banbrook, P O Box 3600, Auckland Fax: (09) 377-0762AND IN THE MATTER of an application to change or cancel interim and final enforcement orders under s 321 of the Act BETWEEN CASH FOR SCRAP LIMITED Appellant AND AUCKLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent AND IN THE MATTER of an application under s 315 of the Act BETWEEN WILLIAM VICTOR CONWAY, CAROL MARGARET DOWN, CASH FOR SCRAP LIMITED and MILLINEUM INVESTMENTS LIMITED Appellants AND AUCKLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent[1] The respondents, the ARC and the MCC, successfully applied to strike out the appellants' amended Notice of Appeal, filed in relation to an Environment Court 6 December 2005. In my judgment 18 September 2006 I granted that application and struck out the amended Notice of Appeal. The ARC and MCC now apply for costs. [2] The appellants' counsel has filed a memorandum acknowledging that the respondents' calculations as to costs are correct and that, although the appellants have appealed against my judgment, they cannot oppose the making of costs, although they do not actually consent to a costs order and reserve the right to raise the issue of costs at the appeal. [3] I therefore make orders as to costs: a) In favour of the ARC of $6,235.00 in accordance with its counsel's supplementary memorandum 30 November 2006; b) In favour of the MCC of $6,045.00 in accordance with its counsel's memorandum 29 September 2006. ____________________ P Courtney J