SPEARGRASS HOLDINGS LIMITED v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 2760

SPEARGRASS HOLDINGS LIMITED v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 2760

Proceedings were sufficiently interconnected and results interdependent so costs should be assessed globally; given mixed success (Speargrass succeeded on the Environment Court appeal but failed on the judicial review and PLA claims) and that Speargrass elected to run three intertwined proceedings producing prolix...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 2760
Parties
Appellant / Applicant: Speargrass Holdings Limited; Respondent / First Respondent: Queenstown Lakes District Council; Interested Party / Respondent (trust): Flax Trust; Second Applicants / Occupiers of Adjoining Property: Christopher Scott Meehan and Michaela Ward Meehan; Respondents / Trustees of Flax Trust: Frederikus Petrus Maria van Brandenburg and Dianne Mary Jacqueline van Brandenburg
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
24 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Combined Proceedings: Environment Court Appeal; Judicial Review of Council Decision; Property Law Act S333 Application / Costs Decision Following Final Judgment
Outcome
Costs (including disbursements) to lie where they fall across all three proceedings and the costs application
Legal Topics
Resource Consent Variation, Permitted Baseline, Judicial Review Delay/laches, Property Law Act S333 Removal of Structure, Costs and Increased Costs Uplift
Resource Management Administrative Law / Judicial Review Property Law Civil Procedure Costs Resource Consent Variation Permitted Baseline Judicial Review Delay/laches Property Law Act S333 Removal of Structure +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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Speargrass Holdings Limited

Appellant / Applicant

Queenstown Lakes District Council

Respondent / First Respondent

Flax Trust

Interested Party / Respondent (trust)

Christopher Scott Meehan and Michaela Ward Meehan

Second Applicants / Occupiers of Adjoining Property

Frederikus Petrus Maria van Brandenburg and Dianne Mary Jacqueline van Brandenburg

Respondents / Trustees of Flax Trust

Procedural Posture

Combined Proceedings: Environment Court Appeal; Judicial Review of Council Decision; Property Law Act S333 Application / Costs Decision Following Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded in light of mixed success across three interconnected proceedings
  2. 2 Whether increased costs (uplift) should be awarded for alleged abusive or unnecessarily protracted conduct, voluminous and irrelevant material, unmeritorious arguments, delay and rejection of a settlement offer

Ratio Decidendi

Proceedings were sufficiently interconnected and results interdependent so costs should be assessed globally; given mixed success (Speargrass succeeded on the Environment Court appeal but failed on the judicial review and PLA claims) and that Speargrass elected to run three intertwined proceedings producing prolix material, the fair and proportionate outcome is that costs, including disbursements, lie where they fall; no uplift was warranted because the global costs result and the Court's refusal of Speargrass's relief for some claims already penalised the party's conduct, the settlement offer was too late and not demonstrably more beneficial, and some expert evidence added little to the...

Court Disposition

Costs (including disbursements) to lie where they fall across all three proceedings and the costs application

Orders

  • Costs, including disbursements, to lie where they fall across Speargrass Holdings Ltd v Queenstown Lakes District Council proceedings CIV-2016-425-000121, CIV-2017-425-000062 and CIV-2017-425-000078 and this costs application