Supreme Court refuses to hear rates revolt case
Supreme Court refuses to hear rates revolt case
Wednesday 1 April, 2020
The Supreme Court has delivered a small piece of good news for local authorities around the country on rates recovery. The case came out of the long-running rates revolt saga in Kaipara. The Rogans had refused to pay their rates and Kaipara District Council took the matter to court. The Council succeeded in the District Court, High Court and Court of Appeal (although the Court of Appeal disagreed with the other courts about the reasons why).
The Rogans then spent almost a year attempting to attack the Court of Appeal judgment, not through an appeal but instead they tried to have the judgment recalled or re-opened, and they also complained to the Chief Justice. None of these methods was appropriate or successful. They finally asked the Supreme Court for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court refused as the delay was not due to error but due to the Rogans having chosen to take a number of “fruitless steps”. In addition, it is an indulgence to allow an extension of time for a third appeal and the Rogan’s case was not strong enough to deserve such an indulgence.
The Supreme Court wasn’t persuaded that the Rogan’s claim had a public interest element. Their claim was about detailed provisions in rates assessments and rates invoices but there was no doubt that they were well-informed of what they had to pay and when. Their refusal to pay was a protest, not a failure to understand.
The Supreme Court’s decision is good news for councils as it shows the court taking a clear-eyed view of the rates revolt and bringing an end to a long-running claim which lacked merit.
For assistance with matters relating to rates, please contact Megan Crocket or Mark Renner.
Related Articles
Councils challenge to transfer of water services rejected in High Court
Thursday 30 March, 2023
When the rubber hits the road - All aboard Aotearoa's challenge
Tuesday 11 October, 2022
Operative plans and proposed plans: what to do when there is a significant policy shift?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022
Notices of requirement are relevant for resource consent applications
Wednesday 30 March, 2022
Avoidance policies reign in the wake of King Salmon, but what do they require?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022
Court gives guidance on consultation and decision-making process
Wednesday 30 March, 2022
Cultural evidence and the continued draw of the overall judgment
Tuesday 21 December, 2021
Will new housing density rules increase contributions for developers?
Thursday 28 October, 2021
Lease of Wanaka Airport set aside due to insufficient consultation
Tuesday 15 June, 2021
What if an abatement notice requires you to breach the Resource Management Act?
Tuesday 15 June, 2021
“No ‘wine-ing’ covenants” declined for a subdivision consent in Gibbston Valley
Tuesday 15 June, 2021
From car parking fine to judicial review of a council’s code of conduct
Tuesday 15 June, 2021
Councils remain liable for compliance of contractors with the RMA
Thursday 18 March, 2021
Randerson Report released: New Direction for Resource Management
Wednesday 5 August, 2020
Could companies be liable to the public for the harm caused by their emissions?
Tuesday 10 March, 2020
Avoiding double penalties when sentencing a company and director
Thursday 23 April, 2020
Can an easement be granted over an esplanade reserve for a commercial activity?
Thursday 12 December, 2019
Draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2019 for consultation
Thursday 3 October, 2019
Local authority requiring monetary contributions on designations
Thursday 20 June, 2019
Bella Vista: MBIE Report highlights failure to perform statutory functions
Tuesday 9 April, 2019
Recent decision on "affected persons" highlights the importance of context
Wednesday 28 November, 2018
Must Councils accept an assertion that a person is ‘suitably qualified'?
Friday 9 March, 2018
