FRIENDS OF MARINELAND OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v NAPIER CITY COUNCIL HC NAP CIV 2010-441-000825
Costs are awarded to the respondent on a 2B basis but reduced to $12,000 (the sum paid into Court as security) because the proceeding attracted significant public interest and the applicant had limited resources; the applicant did not unduly multiply the proceedings and the Council is entitled to costs following the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-066e3af4_694e_4245_a573_c90f1ec51402.pdf
- Parties
- Applicant: Friends of Marineland of New Zealand Incorporated; Respondent: Napier City Council
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 20 July 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Under Local Government Statute / Costs Determination After Judgment Dismissing the Applicant's Claim
- Outcome
- Applicant's judicial review was dismissed (earlier judgment) and costs awarded to the Respondent in the sum of $12,000
- Legal Topics
- Predetermination, Consultation Adequacy, Public Interest Litigation, Costs Assessment (2 B), Security for Costs
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Friends of Marineland of New Zealand Incorporated
Applicant
Napier City Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Local Government Statute / Costs Determination After Judgment Dismissing the Applicant's Claim
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Council pre-determined its decision to close Marineland
- 2 Whether consultation was adequate
- 3 Whether costs should follow the event and be assessed on a 2B basis
Ratio Decidendi
Costs are awarded to the respondent on a 2B basis but reduced to $12,000 (the sum paid into Court as security) because the proceeding attracted significant public interest and the applicant had limited resources; the applicant did not unduly multiply the proceedings and the Council is entitled to costs following the event.
Court Disposition
Applicant's judicial review was dismissed (earlier judgment) and costs awarded to the Respondent in the sum of $12,000
Orders
- Napier City Council is awarded costs in the sum of $12,000
- The sum of $12,000 paid into Court as security for costs is to be applied to satisfy the costs award
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
FRIENDS OF MARINELAND OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v NAPIER CITY COUNCIL HC NAP CIV 2010-441-000825 [20 July 2012]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDNAPIER REGISTRYCIV 2010-441-000825[2012] NZHC 1792UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 andthe Local Government Act 2002BETWEEN FRIENDS OF MARINELAND OF NEWZEALAND INCORPORATEDApplicantAND NAPIER CITY COUNCILRespondentOn the papersCounsel: P Ross for the ApplicantM Lawson for the RespondentJudgment: 20 July 2012JUDGMENT OF MALLON J (Costs)[1] Friends of Marineland sought judicial review of the Council's decision toclose Marineland (a long-standing tourist attraction in Napier). Friends of Marineland claimed that the Council pre-determined its decision and the consultation was inadequate. In my judgment given on 17 May 2012 I dismissed their claim. I reserved costs.[2] The Council seeks costs on a 2B basis. It calculates these at $22,372. It says that the usual principle, that costs should follow the event, should be applied. It says that the proceeding was not in the public interest. It says that Friends of Marineland represented a small minority who doggedly wished Marineland to continue despite clear directives against animals held in captivity. It further says that the claim waswithout substance, poorly pleaded and presented, and drawn out by a failure to comply with Court deadlines.[3] I agree that costs should follow the event. I also agree that 2B is the correct category.[4] However I disagree that there was no public interest in the proceeding. The future of Marineland was of high interest to the people of Napier. Consultation attracted a large number of submissions. Many of these submissions were in favour of a redeveloped Marineland. Friends of Marineland did not stand to benefit financially from this proceeding. Their concern was to ensure that the Council had acted lawfully in making the decision with which they did not agree. There is a public interest in ensuring local authorities act lawfully in making decisions of this kind.[5] I also disagree that Friends of Marineland brought and presented the case in a way that added to the Council's costs. It is clear that Friends of Marineland did nothave significant resources. As such, the claim needed to be brought economically. The pleadings and the presentation are a reflection of that. Moreover, although Friends of Marineland were slow to pursue the claim, it was the Council's decisionto pursue interlocutory applications which, in the event, were only partially successful. The Council already has a costs order in its favour in respect of those applications.[6] I consider that an order for costs should be made in the Council's favour inthe sum of $12,000. This is the sum which I understand to have been paid into Court as security for costs. It is a little over half of 2B costs. That is an appropriate reflection of the public interest nature of the claim.Mallon JSolicitors:Cliff Church Legal, Hastings for the ApplicantLawson Robinson, Napier for the Respondent