HOJSGAARD v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, LINZ [2018] NZHC 1563

HOJSGAARD v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, LINZ [2018] NZHC 1563

The Court stayed execution of its direction to the Chief Executive to reconsider the survey because the Chief Executive's statutory role and the novelty of the legal question risked rendering the appeal moot if the direction were executed; however the Court refused to stay the proceeding as to costs, reserving costs...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 1563
Parties
Plaintiff: Peter Hojsgaard; First Defendant: Chief Executive, Land Information New Zealand; Second Defendant: Robin Patrick Brill
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
27 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Post Judgment, Appeal Pending (stay Application)
Outcome
Execution of paragraph [110] of the substantive judgment stayed; costs not stayed and reserved for determination; directions issued for filing of costs memoranda
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Costs, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation, Boundary Dispute
Administrative Law Property Law Cadastral Survey Law Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Costs Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Hojsgaard

Plaintiff

Chief Executive, Land Information New Zealand

First Defendant

Robin Patrick Brill

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Post Judgment, Appeal Pending (stay Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether execution of the High Court's direction to the Chief Executive should be stayed pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Court should stay further proceedings relating to costs pending appeal
  3. 3 Whether the Court should have supplanted the Chief Executive's statutory role and quashed the survey itself

Ratio Decidendi

The Court stayed execution of its direction to the Chief Executive to reconsider the survey because the Chief Executive's statutory role and the novelty of the legal question risked rendering the appeal moot if the direction were executed; however the Court refused to stay the proceeding as to costs, reserving costs and directing filing of costs memoranda, because there was no basis to delay costs pending appeal and the successful party should not be prejudiced.

Court Disposition

Execution of paragraph [110] of the substantive judgment stayed; costs not stayed and reserved for determination; directions issued for filing of costs memoranda

Orders

  • Stay of execution of paragraph [110] of the substantive decision dated 20 April 2018
  • Costs reserved for determination; parties to file short costs memoranda