Urgency was considered, says Waimate Council
Waimate District Council did take the requirements for “urgent” building work into account before deciding to prosecute a building owner for work done without consent, the council maintained at a costs hearing in the Christchurch High Court.
It is the second day of the hearing at which building owner Keith Williams is seeking more costs over the failed prosecution. District Court Judge Joanna Maze has made an order for the council to pay $80,000 but counsel for Mr Williams, Rick Farr, is arguing that the company, Glenkeith Industries, should be paid another $120,000 in costs.
In making the order, Judge Maze found that the council acted with “a high degree of negligence”.
Counsel for the District Council, Stephen Quinn, told Justice Robert Dobson today that the council was “strongly opposed to any increase in the award of costs”.
He said no new grounds had been put forward that had not been before Judge Maze at the District Court hearing. The High Court could not be justified in concluding that there should be any increase in the sum awarded.
He said $60,000 represented one percent of the district’s rates.
This had been the only prosecution initiated by the council in the last 10 years, he told the judge.
Justice Dobson replied: “Oh dear. They will be very gunshy of doing another one.”
“This experience has had an impact,” said Mr Quinn.
In his submissions, which continued all morning and into the afternoon, he pointed to a series of records and documents indicating that the council had considered whether the repairs made to the Innes Street building had been carried out as urgent work.
The repairs were carried out after a wall of the building began flexing in the wind in December 2010. The council does not accept that the repair work arose from an “exceptional event”.
The Building Act allows urgent work to be carried out for safety reasons.
Mr Quinn said the council had replied to a letter from the company, saying it had “noted the contents” which included a reference to the building work being done under urgency.
He also referred to notes from a meeting of council staff in February 2011, which Mr Williams had elected not to attend. The notes included a reference to the council staff wanting Mr Williams “to proceed with the work in a legal manner” and saying that the work did not meet the “urgency” requirements.
The amount of work could not come under that section of the Act, which related to making a building safe in an emergency, Mr Quinn said. “In essence it is not an open chequebook to do work that is well beyond what’s necessary to secure it for that purpose.”
Justice Dobson was expected to reserve his decision.
Category: Focus
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Connect
Connect with us via: