SKURR AS TRUSTEES OF E M AND J A SKURR FAMILY TRUST V CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL HC CHCH CIV 2008-409-000465
The judge was bound by the earlier finding that both parties were partially successful and, after balancing that with the centrality of the riverbed declaration and the defendant's expense in defending mandamus, exercised discretion to dismiss both costs applications so that costs lie where they fall.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-9ba6a1de_22c8_40fa_830b_ad8b40418bd5.pdf
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Edward Murray Skurr; Janice Anne Skurr; John Edwin Murray Skurr as trustees of E M and J A Skurr Family Trust; Defendant: Canterbury Regional Council
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 30 April 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Costs Judgment
- Outcome
- Both applications for costs dismissed; costs lie as they fall.
- Legal Topics
- Costs, Declaration, Mandamus, Riverbed Vesting
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Edward Murray Skurr; Janice Anne Skurr; John Edwin Murray Skurr as trustees of E M and J A Skurr Family Trust
Plaintiff
Canterbury Regional Council
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs were substantially successful for costs purposes
- 2 Whether the riverbed was vested in the defendant
- 3 Whether the defendant was put to unnecessary expense defending mandamus
Ratio Decidendi
The judge was bound by the earlier finding that both parties were partially successful and, after balancing that with the centrality of the riverbed declaration and the defendant's expense in defending mandamus, exercised discretion to dismiss both costs applications so that costs lie where they fall.
Court Disposition
Both applications for costs dismissed; costs lie as they fall.
Orders
- Costs lie where they fall.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
SKURR AS TRUSTEES OF E M AND J A SKURR FAMILY TRUST V CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL HC CHCH CIV 2008-409-000465 30 April 2009IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV 2008-409-000465BETWEEN EDWARD MURRAY SKURR, JANICE ANNE SKURR AND JOHN EDWIN MURRAY SKURR AS TRUSTEES OF E M AND J A SKURR FAMILY TRUST Plaintiffs AND CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL Defendant Hearing: (On Papers) Counsel: D Lester for Plaintiffs P F Whiteside for Defendant Judgment: 30 April 2009COSTS JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J[1] The last paragraph of the judgment of 15 December last reads:[48] Both parties have been partially successful. I reserve leave to either party to apply for costs.[2] Both parties now seek costs. The defendant seeks costs on the basis that the plaintiffs failed to obtain the relief they sought in the statement of claim. The plaintiffs seek costs on the basis that by obtaining a declaration that the riverbed was not vested in the defendant the plaintiffs have in substance succeeded. [3] I regard myself as bound by the first sentence of paragraph [48]. That is sufficient to reject the plaintiffs' argument of substantial success. However, I agree with Mr Lester's argument that whether or not the riverbed had been vested in Council was at the core of the dispute between the parties, that is why I made thedeclaration. There is, however, force in Mr Whiteside's argument that the Council were put to unnecessary expense to defend an application for mandamus. [4] Balancing all these factors I dismiss both applications for costs. Costs lie as they fall.Solicitors: Helmore Bowron & Scott, Rangiora, for Plaintiffs Wynn Williams & Co, Christchurch, for Defendant