QUAKE OUTCASTS v THE MINISTER FOR CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY AND ORS[2013] NZHC 2636

QUAKE OUTCASTS v THE MINISTER FOR CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY AND ORS[2013] NZHC 2636

The Court allowed the applicants' document inspection claim on a 3C basis due to problematic piecemeal disclosure, awarded the claimed disbursements, granted a 33% uplift under r 14.6(3) because the litigation combined matters of general constitutional importance with a heightened vulnerability of applicants arising from the red zone, granted a stay of payment subject to the award being paid into the applicants' solicitors' trust account pending appeal, and denied reclassification of Fowler Developments to category 3, awarding it costs on a 2B basis.

Citation
[2013] NZHC 2636
Parties
Applicant: Fowler Developments Limited; Applicant: Quake Outcasts; First Respondent: Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery; Respondent/second Respondent: Chief Executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority; Intervener: Human Rights Commission
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
10 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (public Law Challenge to Red Zone Decisions) / Costs and Stay Application (post‑judgment Pending Appeal)
Outcome
Costs awarded to Quake Outcasts with 33% uplift; award and disbursements to be paid into applicants' solicitors trust account pending appeal; Fowler Developments awarded costs on a 2B basis.
Legal Topics
Costs Awards and Uplift, Stay of Execution/dissipation, Judicial Review, Disclosure/official Information Act, Human Rights, Red Zone Property Acquisition
Administrative Law Public Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Property Law Costs Awards and Uplift Stay of Execution/dissipation Judicial Review +3 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fowler Developments Limited

Applicant

Quake Outcasts

Applicant

Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery

First Respondent

Chief Executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority

Respondent/second Respondent

Human Rights Commission

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (public Law Challenge to Red Zone Decisions) / Costs and Stay Application (post‑judgment Pending Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether inspection/disclosure warranted 3C time allowance
  2. 2 Whether an uplift under r 14.6 is justified and on what basis
  3. 3 Whether to stay payment of costs to avoid dissipation pending appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the applicants' document inspection claim on a 3C basis due to problematic piecemeal disclosure, awarded the claimed disbursements, granted a 33% uplift under r 14.6(3) because the litigation combined matters of general constitutional importance with a heightened vulnerability of applicants arising from the red zone, granted a stay of payment subject to the award being paid into the applicants' solicitors' trust account pending appeal, and denied reclassification of Fowler Developments to category 3, awarding it costs on a 2B basis.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to Quake Outcasts with 33% uplift; award and disbursements to be paid into applicants' solicitors trust account pending appeal; Fowler Developments awarded costs on a 2B basis.

Orders

  • Quake Outcasts' costs as claimed on the 3C basis allowed (subject to arithmetic corrections agreed between counsel)
  • Disbursements to Quake Outcasts allowed in the sum of $14,538.87 (inclusive of GST)