When will the Environment Court award higher costs?

When will the Environment Court award higher costs?
Thursday 23 April, 2020
The Environment Court recently released two decisions in which it considered when it was appropriate to award higher costs and indemnity costs. Costs in the Environment Court generally fall into three broad categories:
- Standard costs: usually within a "comfort zone" of 25-33% of actual costs incurred.
- Higher than normal costs: where particular aggravating or adverse factors might be present, such as those identified in Bielby.[1]
- Indemnity costs: awarded rarely and only in exceptional circumstances.
In Vortac v Western Bay of Plenty DC,[2]the Court considered that indemnity costs were justified. The plaintiff had made allegations that the Council was behaving illegally by allowing storm water from excess rainfall to travel through a natural gully on land owned by the plaintiff (of which low-lying areas were flooded in high-water). The plaintiff sought interim enforcement orders requiring the Council to limit water run-off to the area specified in an easement and a declaration that the Council was acting illegally.
The interim application failed, and the Court concluded that the Council was entitled to indemnity costs for the following reasons:
- The grounds of the application were not set out;
- The assertions in the affidavits were not proven;
- A number of critical assertions (such as illegality) have not been made out in any way and continue to be repeated;
- The proceedings were misconceived as an interim enforcement order;
- The Council's costs were in the circumstances modest; and
- That there are no grounds made out on which the ratepayer should be obliged to meet even part of the cost of these proceedings.
However, in Stone v Hastings District Council,[3] the Court declined to award higher costs to the Council despite the Council’s argument that the plaintiffs had failed repeatedly on the same grounds and their arguments were without substance.
The plaintiffs had applied for a non-notified resource consent to subdivide their rural land into 2 blocks. Consent was refused because the proposal didn’t meet the minimum site area for subdivision in the rural zone and was contrary to the objectives and policies of the Rural Resource Strategy, the Rural Zone and the Subdivision sections of the Proposed District Plan and the relevant Assessment Criteria of the Proposed District Plan. The plaintiffs were unsuccessful in their appeal to Council and in the Environment Court.
The Court held that it was relevant that the plaintiffs were unsuccessful twice before coming to Court but acknowledged that the plaintiffs’ evidence about the effects of the proposal had been accepted. The Court held that it was appropriate to make a costs award in the circumstances, particularly because the issues raised on appeal were largely a repeat of those raised before the Commissioner and on objection. However, although the arguments were a 'repeat', they were not without substance, so the Court awarded costs of 34%, only just outside the standard costs category.
Conclusion
The grounds on which the Environment Court will award higher or indemnity costs are well-known and uncontroversial, however, the Court is more likely to consider that aggravating or exceptional circumstances are present if a plaintiff makes allegations of illegality rather than merely pursuing a somewhat forlorn hope.
For questions relating to this article, please contact one of our experts below.
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
