Robinson v Whangarei District Council [2018] NZHC 479 (20 March 2018)

Last Updated: 11 April 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI TERENGA PARĀOA ROHE

CIV-2017-488-000094 [2018] NZHC 479

IN THE MATTER	of an appeal against decision of Land Valuation Tribunal
BETWEEN	JOHN CLIFFORD WALTER ROBINSON Appellant
AND	WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	20 March 2018

JUDGMENT [COSTS] OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie On 20 March 2018 at 3.30pm

Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:..............................

Solicitors/counsel:

Thomson Wilson, Whangarei

Copy to:

Mr J C W Robinson

ROBINSON v WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 479 [20 March 2018]

[1] I refer to my reserve judgment dated 19 February 2018.¹

[2] I dismissed Mr Robinson’s appeal and held that the Whangarei District Council was entitled to its reasonable costs and disbursements.² I expressed the preliminary view that costs should be fixed on a 2B basis, and invited the parties to try and reach agreement in that regard.³ If not, I put in place a timetable for the filing of memoranda.⁴

[3] I have now received memoranda. Mr Mathias, for the Council, tells me that he outlined to Mr Robinson what costs would be fixed on a 2B basis, but that Mr Robinson was unwilling to accept liability for costs. Costs calculated on a 2B basis total $8,756. However, the Council’s costs only came to $7,162.45, and a costs order is sought in this lesser sum.

[4] Mr Robinson filed a memorandum in reply. He advanced two propositions – first, that the Council had failed to comply with the statutory procedure on revaluation and that as a consequence, and even though the appeal was unsuccessful, the Council should not be awarded costs, and secondly, that he was unsuccessful in his costs claim before the Land Valuation Tribunal, and that on a quid pro quo basis, the Council should not receive a costs award when it was successful in the High Court. He argued that costs should lie where they fall.

[5] Mr Robinson’s arguments fail to acknowledge the outcome of the hearing before both the Land Valuation Tribunal and this Court. Notwithstanding some procedural failings by the Council, both the Land Valuation Tribunal and this Court have held that the value attributed to the property at the time of the general revaluation should remain unaltered. At both hearings, it was common ground that the revaluation took place in accordance with the Valuer-General’s requirements and that a registered valuer signed the revaluation off on behalf of the Valuer-General prior to it being notified to objectors. The quantum of the revaluation has now been upheld both by the Land Valuation Tribunal and by this Court on appeal.

¹ Robinson v Whangarei District Council [2018] NZHC 182.

² At [44]-[45].

³ At [45].

⁴ At [45].

[6] There were subsequent errors on the part of the Council, but they are of no consequence in relation to the revaluation of the property.

[7] The incidence of costs before the Land Valuation Tribunal is equally irrelevant. The Tribunal’s decision on costs was not challenged on appeal and this Court has a discretion as to where costs should lie in relation to matters before it.⁵

[8] The reality is that Mr Robinson mounted a general attack on a reasoned and carefully considered judgment from the Land Valuation Tribunal. That attack was wholly unsuccessful. The Council, or more properly its ratepayers, has been put to some cost as a consequence and in accordance with the general practice of the Court, it is appropriate that Mr Robinson should meet the appropriate costs award.

[9] Neither party dispute that costs should be fixed on a 2B basis. It is clearly appropriate for proceedings of this kind and the level of complexity. Mr Mathias has quite properly acknowledged that the Council’s actual costs are less than costs calculated on a 2B basis. The fact that a costs order calculated in accordance with the High Court Rules exceeds actual costs incurred does not justify a higher award, and Mr Mathias does not suggest otherwise.

[10] I make a costs order against Mr Robinson, and in favour of the Council, in the sum of $7,162.45.








Wylie J

⁵ High Court Rules, r 14.1(1).