Battle over earth mound labours on

A QUEENSTOWN architect and a local property developer have gone another round in the courts in a longrunning legal bout over a mound of earth between their properties.

Fred van Brandenburg and Chris Meehan fell out in 2014 over the 5.1mhigh, 90mlong mound on Mr van Brandenburg’s property in Speargrass Flat, between Queenstown and Arrowtown.

A High Court judgement on October 24 has now settled a costs issue arising from a judgement by the court in May.

In last month’s decision, Justice Dunningham considered an application by Flax Trust, of which Mr van Brandenburg is a trustee, for a judicial order relating to costs and disbursements — effectively which party should pay for the cost of lawyers and other expenses.

The judge decided the three proceedings taken by Mr Meehan’s company Speargrass Holdings, which were heard together in February, were ‘‘sufficiently interconnected’’ that Flax Trust’s costs application could be assessed on a ‘‘global basis’’.

She found the parties should pay their own costs.

As reported by the Otago Daily Times in May, Mr van Brandenburg, an internationally acclaimed architect, had the mound built 5.1m high along his boundary in response to Mr Meehan building his home closer to the boundary than originally approved on the neighbouring site.

The mound’s almost double height is what was approved, on a nonnotified basis, by the Queenstown Lakes District Council in 2014.

Mr Meehan had subsequently gained consent to move the building platform and build a taller structure, but the variations to the original consent were not registered before work began.

The Flax Trust applied for retrospective consent for the higher mound, but Speargrass objected and the consent was denied by the council, but Flax Trust won on appeal to the Environment Court in 2016.

Speargrass Holdings successfully appealed that decision, with Justice Dunningham in her May decision finding several errors in the judgement.

But Speargrass’s applications for a judicial review of the council’s decision not to notify the original consent application for the mound, and for a judicial order to have the mound removed, were turned down.

Speargrass has lodged appeals against those elements of the decision. They will be heard at a hearing set down for February.

In last month’s decision, Justice Dunningham found although Speargrass was successful in one proceeding, it pursued two others that were unsuccessful.

The materials it produced for those two proceedings were ‘‘unnecessary prolix’’ and its expert evidence did not assist the court.

‘‘An outcome where costs lie where they fall fairly reflects the parties’ mixed success, and their contribution to the costs that were incurred.’’