FEDERATED FARMERS OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 2776

FEDERATED FARMERS OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 2776 [18 November 2016]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWHANGAREI REGISTRYCIV 2015-488-0064[2016] NZHC 2776UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991IN THE MATTER of an appeal from a decision of theEnvironment Court under s 299 of the ActBETWEEN FEDERATED FARMERS OF NEWZEALAND INCORPORATEDAppellantAND NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCILRespondentHearing: On the papersCounsel: P R Gardner for AppellantG J Mathias for Whangarei District CouncilR J Somerville QC and R A Makgill for Soil & HealthAssociation of NZ IncJudgment: 18 November 2016COSTS JUDGMENT OF PETERS JThis judgment was delivered by Justice Peters on 18 November 2016 at 4.30 pmpursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate: ...................................Solicitors: Lewis' Law, CambridgeThompson Wilson, WhangareiCounsel: R J Somerville QC, DunedinR A Makgill, AucklandCopy for: Federated Farmers of New Zealand, Auckland[1] On 31 August 2016, I issued judgment dismissing an appeal by Federated Farmers of New Zealand Incorporated ("Federated Farmers") against a decision ofthe Environment Court concerning provisions of a regional policy statement proposed by the Northland Regional Council.1[2] Three parties opposed the appeal: Northland Regional Council, Whangarei District Council and Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Incorporated("Soil & Health").[3] Although Northland Regional Council does not seek costs, Whangarei District Council and Soil & Health each seek costs on a 2B basis.2 Soil & Health also seeks an allowance for the costs of second counsel and disbursements.[4] Federated Farmers submits that I should refuse costs altogether, or award a reduced sum, on the ground that it brought its appeal in the public interest.3 If, contrary to that submission, costs are awarded, then Federated Farmers submits that it should not have to pay a sum greater than that due had there been a single respondent.[5] I do not accept Federated Farmers' submission as to the motivation for its appeal. As Kós J said in Horticulture New Zealand v Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council, Federated Farmers represents a substantial primary sector group.4 Itbrought these proceedings because it was in its members' interest to do so. For that reason I do not propose to decline or reduce costs.[6] That said, I am not persuaded to award more than one set of costs, as the submissions advanced in opposition to the appeal might well have been made by one party.[7] Having considered the parties' memoranda, I award one set of costs on a 2B basis, totalling $10,348.00. I record that there was some quibbling in the1 Federated Farmers of New Zealand Inc v Northland Regional Council [2016] NZHC 2036.2 The Northland Regional Council does not seek costs.3 High Court Rules, r 14.7(e).4 Horticulture New Zealand v Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council [2013] NZHC 2853.submissions as to whether Federated Farmers should be required to pay costs in respect of a case management conference which the parties prepared for and expected but which in fact was not held. The total amount claimed for this item is 0.3 of a day and it is trivial. Costs are considered in the round and I do not propose to make a reduction for such a sum.[8] Two-thirds of the costs are to be paid to Soil & Health as its submissions were the most comprehensive and one-third is to be paid to Whangarei District Council.[9] I do not certify for Soil & Health's second counsel but Federated Farmers is to pay Soil & Health the expenses or disbursements claimed in items 2, 3 and 4 ofAnnexure A to Soil & Health's submissions dated 18 October 2016...................................................................Peters J