14-year fight over tiny block
A developer who battled the Palmerston North City Council for years over the value of a tiny block of land has won a small victory.
Les Fugle has dodged a potential order for him to pay thousands of dollars in legal costs on behalf of a liquidated company.
A High Court decision released this month is just the latest in a string of legal battles between Fugle and the city council. He has stormed out of meetings with council panels over developments, and the council has taken action against him.
The High Court decision had its genesis 14 years ago when another property development company, Brian Green Properties Ltd, wanted to create a subdivision at the end of Valley Views Rd on the outskirts of Palmerston North.
However, a 70-square-metre strip of land owned by Hardiway Enterprises Ltd – a company directed by Fugle – prevented completion of an access road to and through the proposed subdivision.
The council moved to acquire the land under the Public Works Act in 2004, with Brian Green Properties agreeing to compensate the council for costs incurred in this process.
The council and Hardiway first got stuck on how much the land was worth. The company wanted $350,000, but the council offered $85,000. The Land Valuation Tribunal found the land was worth $36,000.
Subsequent appeals and cross-appeals between the council and Hardiway went all the way to the Court of Appeal, which found the $36,000 valuation was correct.
Hardiway was then ordered to pay the council costs, which ended up spiralling from $14,400 in 2015 to $84,800 a year later.
The council eventually applied to put Hardiway into liquidation, with liquidator’s reports noting the company’s only asset was the strip of land.
The council then went after Fugle for the legal costs for some hearings, arguing there were laws allowing it to happen.
The judgment is not totally clear on the exact dollar figure the council wanted Fugle to pay, but he opposed.
The court found Hardiway, while not directly owned by Fugle, was run by him through his control of the family trust that owned the company.
‘‘Hardiway was no more than a front for Mr Fugle’s own self-interest.’’
That meant the council was entitled to go after him for Hardiway’s legal costs.
However, the bid failed because the council had taken too long to file its claim against him.
It was made aware in 2015 the company had no assets outside of the strip of land, but did not start proceedings until 2016.
The court called that a ‘‘significant delay’’, with other cases of this kind being declined when costs had been sought in less than three months.
As a result, the council’s application was dismissed and Fugle was entitled to legal costs.
... the bid failed because the council had taken too long to file its claim against him.