Your Questions Answered - Further litigation a burden to ratepayers

 

Many people seek clarification from Commissioners on what is going on with all this MRRA initiated litigation.

The MRRA members are continuing on their journey through the Courts. They have now applied for leave to appeal the latest judgment handed down by the Courts, being the dismissal of their appeal by the Court of Appeal. This new appeal, if granted, would be to the Supreme Court.

Frankly, we are lost as to MRRA’s intentions. We can only take their intentions from the public statements they have made about “bankrupting” the Council. The position, as expressed in the Court of Appeal by their counsel, was that they preferred to have “a receiver rather than Commissioners” run the Council.

Neither wish makes any sense for ratepayers or residents. The Council is in good financial shape. And as for a receiver, we expect that they would seek to recover debt quickly, by imposing a uniform rate in the dollar of rateable value across the district, which would have a heavy burden on ratepayers. Why would the MRRA be advocating this? Best to ask the leaders of MRRA to explain.

The costs to defend MRRA’s litigation are substantial, and of course it is a direct cost on ratepayers. Legal costs to date on this litigation has now passed the million dollar mark.

The first litigation began in 2013, when the MRRA sought a judicial review of a number of matters in the High Court. The Council tried to have this action struck out. We failed. It was heard in the High Court in 2014 by Justice Heath. The Court did not grant the remedies that MRRA sought, but did rule that the Council must pay MRRA’s legal costs. The costs claimed amounted to approximately $150,000. We did not appeal this award of costs ruling, preferring to let all the decisions rest as they fell, and expecting that MRRA would do the same.

This was not to be.
The High Court's decision was appealed by the MRRA, and the hearing in the Court of Appeal was held in August 2015. The Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal, with the decision given on 17 December 2015. The Court instructed MRRA to pay the Council costs, which calculated according to the Court's rules total $16,500.

MRRA have now sought leave to appeal the Court of Appeal decision.