MAWHINNEY & ANOR V WAITAKERE CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2006-485-000627

MAWHINNEY & ANOR V WAITAKERE CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2006-485-000627 17 July 2007IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2006-485-000627UNDER The Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA) BETWEEN P W MAWHINNEY AND GLORIT SUBDIVISION LIMITED Appellant AND WAITAKERE CITY COUNCIL Respondent Hearing: 17 July 2007 Appearances: Appellant appearing in person GR Milner-White for Respondent Judgment: 17 July 2007JUDGMENT (NO. 3) OF ASHER JSolicitors: PW Mawhinney, PO Box 95 157 Swanson Auckland Kensington Swan, Private Bag 92101 Auckland Meredith Connell, PO Box 2213 Auckland[1] The appellant, Mr Mawhinney, applies for an adjournment of the appeal which is set down for 5 October 2007. That is opposed by Mr Milner-White for the Council. [2] Mr Mawhinney argues that if he is successful in appeals on related matters that are to be heard in the Environment Court on 27 August and 3 September 2007, it will not be necessary to proceed with the appeal. Mr Milner-White for Council argues with some force that Mr Mawhinney has already had one indulgence in obtaining leave to appeal out of time, and that this is a longstanding matter and there is a need for finality. [3] I propose to allow Mr Mawhinney's application but only in a limited way. The reason I am going to allow his application is that although I am by no means convinced the Environment Court proceedings have a realistic chance of resolving all issues and making the appeal nugatory, while there is some possibility that this may be the result of the Environment Court proceedings, I do not wish to have a precious day of Court time wasted. While the respondent is entitled to ask for resolution of this matter, I do not consider that the prejudice of another two months of delay will be undue. [4] I also consider that the Environment Court judgments, if they are available before the appeal is heard, might be of some assistance in the hearing of the appeal in this Court. If I adjourn the 5 October 2007 fixture to a date which is available, namely Friday 7 December 2007, there is a reasonable chance that the Environment Court judgments will be available by then. I understand the pressures that that Court is under, but I would ask the parties to make this Minute available to the Environment Court that hears the appeals. [5] Accordingly I vacate the fixture of 5 October 2007 and allocate a new fixture of Friday 7 December 2007.[6] I make the following timetable orders: a) The appellant must file and serve on or before Friday 28 September 2007: i) His submissions. The appellant is to provide at the outset of those submissions a list of the issues that arise in the appeal and which he asks the Court to determine. ii) A chronology. b) The respondent must file and serve on or before Friday 26 October 2007: i) Its submissions; ii) If it disagrees with the appellant's chronology, a separate chronology noting areas of disagreement. c) Leave is reserved to either party to seek a further directions conference. [7] I note that this application for an adjournment has taken approximately one hour to hear (including time for discussion between the parties). I do not have a clear view on the merits of Mr Mawhinney's application because of the complicated nature of the interlocking proceedings. I therefore reserve costs. ..Asher J