LAU v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 2491

LAU v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 2491 [11 October 2017]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2016-404-003225[2017] NZHC 2491BETWEEN EE KUOH LAU (AKA AUGUSTINELAU)AppellantAND AUCKLAND COUNCILRespondentHearing: 10 October 2017Appearances: Appellant in personB A Watts for RespondentJudgment: 11 October 2017JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY JThis judgment was delivered by Justice Courtneyon 11 October 2017 at 4.30 pmpursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar / Deputy RegistrarDate...[1] Mr Lau has applied to stay proceedings brought in this Court under CIV- 2016-404-2752 and, possibly, under CIV-2016-404-3225.1[2] The application has its genesis in enforcement orders made by the Environment Court under the Resource Management Act 1991 in respect of properties at 32 Weranui Road, Waiwera2 and 387 Ormiston Road, Flat Bush.3Mr Lau lodged appeals in this Court against both decisions. In April 2017 Hinton J struck out the appeal brought in respect of 387 Ormiston Road as a result of Mr Lau's failure to pay security for costs.4 Woodhouse J dismissed the appeal in relation to 32 Weranui Road.5 In doing so the Judge expressly dismissed Mr Lau'sapplication for a stay.6[3] The current application was brought on the ground that Mr Lau has now filed proceedings against the Auckland Council, the Mayor of Auckland and the Prime Minister. The statement of claim in these new proceedings, which Mr Lau handed up during the course of the hearing, make vague and disjointed assertions that are difficult to follow and seeks judgment against the Council of between $5m and $10m. Mr Lau asserts that all other current proceedings should be stayed "in ordernot to damage any evidence on site during the hearing of these four new proceedings".[4] The application for stay in CIV-2016-404-2752 is opposed by the Council onthe ground that since Woodhouse J dismissed Mr Lau's previous application for staythe matter has been determined in this court, which can now take no further steps. No appeal was brought against Woodhouse J's judgment and nor has Mr Lau applied for leave to appeal it.[5] The Council appeals the application in CIV-2016-404-3225 on the ground that not only have the proceedings been struck out but the enforcement order subject1 The reference to CIV 2016-404-3225 was crossed out in the intituling but the wording of the application suggests that it is intended to encompass it.2 [2016] NZEnvC 212 Auckland Council v Lau, Environment Court File No ENV2016-AKL-102.3 [2016] NZEnvC 251 Auckland Council v Mao, Environment Court File No ENV2016-AKL-251.4 Minute of Hinton J, 23 March 2017 in CIV-2016-404-3225 and sealed order dated 3 May 2017.5 Lau v Auckland Council [2017] NZHC 1010.6 At [48].of the appeal has now been fully implemented and there would therefore be no utility in a stay, even if Mr Lau were able to have to the proceedings reinstated.[6] Mr Lau appeared not to have considered the points raised in the Council's notice of opposition and submissions, but during the course of the hearing didacknowledge Hinton J's order striking out his appeal in the CIV-2016-404-3225proceeding and Woodhouse J's decision dismissing the stay application in the CIV- 2016-404-2752 proceeding. As Mr Watts, for the Council, rightly pointed out, hadMr Lau taken the time to read the Council's notice of opposition and submissionsfiled in advance of the hearing he would have realised that his application must fail.[7] I dismiss Mr Lau's application. I order costs in favour of the Council on a 2B basis.____________________P Courtney J