2 Sept 2022
Because the first respondent's refusal to sign consent was unreasonable in the absence of any suggestion the modification would adversely affect his easement rights and that refusal directly necessitated the proceeding, the Court exercised its discretion to award costs to the applicant on a Category 2B basis for commencement and up to the first call; an uplift was not justified.
17 Nov 2020
Indemnity and increased costs were refused because the interested parties' conduct did not meet the high threshold for indemnity, and Paihia did not demonstrate that the proceeding or steps required substantially more time than band C; the indulgence principle did not apply because the applicant was exercising a statutory right; standard 2B costs were awarded to the applicant in the sum of $19,995; the timetable for compensation was quashed and compensation proceedings deferred pending resolution of the appeal.
22 Sept 2020
The Court was satisfied on inspection and evidence that the proposed relocation of the right of way will not substantially injure the entitled parties in respect of noise, views, parking, safety or the Resort's resource consent position and therefore granted the application to modify easements D435872.3 and D435872.5 as specified.
20 Aug 2014
The court varied the easement under s 317 to permit the garage to remain within defined limits, declared the garage had a frontage wholly on the right-of-way, ordered the second defendants to remove the encroaching part by a date specified, and allocated costs to reflect the mixed outcomes: plaintiffs awarded costs against first defendants to 22 October 2013, plaintiffs awarded 50% of post-22 October 2013 costs against second defendants, and second defendants awarded costs on their counterclaim, resulting in a modest net payment by the second defendants to the plaintiffs.