Opua Coastal Preservation Incorporated v Far North District Council [2020] NZCA 281 (13 July 2020)

Last Updated: 21 July 2020

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA119/2017 [2020] NZCA 281

	BETWEEN	OPUA COASTAL PRESERVATION INCORPORATED Appellant
	AND	FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL First Respondent MINISTER OF CONSERVATION Second Respondent DOUGLAS CRAIG SCHMUCK Third Respondent

Court:	Brown and Gilbert JJ
Counsel:	T H Bennion and E A Whiley for Appellant J G A Day for First Respondent B R Arapere and W M C Randal for Second Respondent J A Browne and C H Prendergast for Third Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	13 July 2020 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Costs

1. The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $9,589.00 and disbursements of $1,384.00.
2. The appellant must pay the third respondent costs of $11,819.00 and disbursements of $3,236.90.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Brown J)

• [1] In a judgment dated 20 July 2018 this Court allowed an appeal against the High Court judgment and directed that the Far North District Council (the Council) and Mr Schmuck were jointly and severally liable to pay Opua Coastal Preservation Inc (Opua) one set of costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements.^[1]
• [2] The Supreme Court allowed an appeal on 29 October 2019.^[2] In a subsequent judgment dated 23 December 2019 the Supreme Court quashed this Court’s costs order and directed this Court to redetermine costs in the light of the Supreme Court’s judgment allowing the appeal.^[3]
• [3] The Council seeks costs on a band A basis ($9,589.00) together with disbursements of $1,384.00. Mr Schmuck also seeks costs on a band A basis ($11,819.00)^[4] and disbursements of $3,236.90.
• [4] Mr Bennion for Opua submits that given the public interest in the appeal rebounded mostly to the benefit of the Council and the fact that Mr Schmuck took the lead role in the appeal while the Council took a limited role, costs in relation to the Council should lie where they fall. He further submits that any award of costs to Mr Schmuck should be reduced by 50 per cent to account for Opua’s success on an issue of some public interest.
• [5] We do not agree with the submissions for Opua. We note that the Supreme Court, while accepting that there was some public interest to Opua’s position, considered that that was limited and did not justify an order that costs should lie where they fall.^[5] Making a small allowance for the public interest aspect of the appeal and reflecting the parties’ different roles, the Supreme Court awarded Mr Schmuck $20,000 and the Council $15,000, but with usual disbursements.
• [6] In our view, the costs sought by the Council and Mr Schmuck, which are significantly less than the sums awarded in the Supreme Court, are reasonable and no deduction for a public interest factor is required.

Result

• [7] Opua must pay the Council costs of $9,589.00 and disbursements of $1,384.00.
• [8] Opua must pay Mr Schmuck costs of $11,819.00 and disbursements of $3,236.90.

Solicitors:
Bennion Law, Wellington for Appellant
Law North Limited, Kerikeri for First Respondent
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Second Respondent
Henderson Reeves Lawyers, Whangarei for Third Respondent

---

^[1] Opua Coastal Preservation Inc v Far North District Council [2018] NZCA 262.

^[2] Schmuck v Opua Coastal Preservation Inc [2019] NZSC 118.

^[3] Schmuck v Opua Coastal Preservation Inc [2019] NZSC 155.

^[4] The additional $2,230 concerns an application for increased security for costs ($1,115) and second counsel ($1,115).

^[5] Schmuck v Opua Coastal Preservation Inc, above n 3, at [8].