KAPITI HIGH VOLTAGE COALITION INCORPORATED v KAPITI COAST DISTRICT COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 1281

KAPITI HIGH VOLTAGE COALITION INCORPORATED v KAPITI COAST DISTRICT COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 1281

The court exercised its discretion to award a reduced amount of costs because Transpower's post‑judgment decision to remove the lines materially achieved the plaintiffs' aims but the trial judgment showed mixed success; accordingly plaintiffs are awarded 25% of Band B scale costs and 25% of disbursements as a modest reflection of settlement impact while recognising the underlying judgment and mixed trial outcome.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 1281
Parties
First Plaintiff: Kapiti High Voltage Coalition Incorporated; Second Plaintiff: Michael Philip Alexander; Second Plaintiff: Brandon Robert Hindry; Second Plaintiff: Juergen Gerhard Jenkner; First Defendant: Kapiti Coast District Council; Second Defendant: Transpower New Zealand Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
6 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Public Law (rma) and Private Law (trespass and Injurious Affection) / Post‑judgment Costs Application Following Settlement of Appeals
Outcome
Plaintiffs awarded a reduced costs award against Transpower for post‑judgment settlement; other costs to lie where they fall
Legal Topics
Existing Use Rights, Consents, Trespass, Injurious Affection, Costs on Settlement, Discontinuance, Appeal Settlement
Resource Management Act 1991 Administrative Law Tort Civil Procedure Costs Existing Use Rights Consents Trespass +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kapiti High Voltage Coalition Incorporated

First Plaintiff

Michael Philip Alexander

Second Plaintiff

Brandon Robert Hindry

Second Plaintiff

Juergen Gerhard Jenkner

Second Plaintiff

Kapiti Coast District Council

First Defendant

Transpower New Zealand Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Public Law (rma) and Private Law (trespass and Injurious Affection) / Post‑judgment Costs Application Following Settlement of Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a post‑judgment decision by a defendant to remove infrastructure and thereby render appeals moot is a relevant event for awarding costs
  2. 2 Whether costs should be assessed solely by reference to trial outcome and conduct or whether subsequent settlement can justify an award
  3. 3 Proper quantum of costs where success is partial and settlement motives unrelated to litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to award a reduced amount of costs because Transpower's post‑judgment decision to remove the lines materially achieved the plaintiffs' aims but the trial judgment showed mixed success; accordingly plaintiffs are awarded 25% of Band B scale costs and 25% of disbursements as a modest reflection of settlement impact while recognising the underlying judgment and mixed trial outcome.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs awarded a reduced costs award against Transpower for post‑judgment settlement; other costs to lie where they fall

Orders

  • Award plaintiffs 25% of scale costs on a Band B basis against Transpower New Zealand Limited
  • Award plaintiffs 25% of disbursements against Transpower New Zealand Limited