Council court wins end in $477,000 bill

Ratepayers in Wellington forked out almost half a million dollars in legal costs as the city council fought opposition to two high-profile developments.

Wellington City Council successfully defended itself against two legal challenges in decisions issued on Monday.

Council chief executive Kevin Lavery said the hearings did not come cheaply for ratepayers and the council was considering recovering costs.

A legal challenge instigated by Enterprise Miramar against a $500 million development of Shelly Bay was dismissed by the High Court.

The two-day hearing last month challenged the consents granted for the project and the council was billed $90,000 in legal costs.

The Environment Court then threw out appeals against Wellington’s proposed Chinese garden and upgrade of Frank Kitts Park in the central city.

The project was opposed by lobby group Waterfront Watch and supporting parties on issues that included a loss of green space, impeded views towards the park and Wellington Harbour, and public safety.

The council was billed $387,000 by its lawyers for the four-day hearing last

‘‘They should be held accountable.’’

Wellington City councillor David Leeon the legal challenge instigated by Enterprise Miramar.

month. ‘‘We didn’t initiate the legal action but we had to respond and defend the city’s position and the costs are the cost. It is a lot and it is disappointing that we are in this position,’’ Lavery said.

The council was considering options to recover costs in both cases, he said.

The costs in both court judgments were reserved. Normally, the losing party pays at least part of the winner’s legal costs.

Councillor David Lee said he was in favour of recovering ratepayer money.

‘‘We were forced into this position of defence, so it is reasonable to file for costs. They made us fork out ratepayer money and it was not a cheap process.

‘‘The appellants willingly undertook this process, so they should be responsible and front up with costs. They should be held accountable.’’

However, councillor Simon Woolf believed costs should be sought on a caseby-case basis.

‘‘I don’t want to deter people from advocating for their community by thinking about incurring costs … it’s all ratepayer money.’’

But he told council officers, in an email: ‘‘There are exceptions, where appellants are vexatious, and/or unreasonable.’’

He did not support seeking costs against individuals or groups, such as Waterfront Watch, who were ratepayers testing decisions in good faith.

Councillor Simon Marsh, who holds the economic development portfolio, believed the council needed to seriously consider recovering costs when it was ratepayer money. ‘‘It is not necessarily a given that we always do this but we need to recover whenever possible.’’

Waterfront Watch president Victor Davie said its costs were more than $100,000 and funded solely by members.

‘‘We have never been required to pay costs before. Our 22-year-old organisation continues to be like David vs Goliath. In this case, our sole lawyer was up against the city council’s two major law firms.

‘‘We are a responsible organisation defending the precious waterfront since 1996, against inconsiderate developments. And will continue to do so.’’

Enterprise Miramar was considering appeal options, so its representative declined to comment on the possibility of paying legal costs.