Appeal – Costs Ruling dated 22 July 2026 – Bruce Negus

1.  In its Decision of the 19th of May this year, the Tribunal gave directions as to costs.

2.  A detailed submission was received from Counsel for the Respondent. Counsel for the Appellant responded to those submissions with a request for invoices to be made available. This resulted in an exchange of the submissions and in the result, a Ruling of the Tribunal dated the 23rd of June 2026. That Ruling should be read as an essential part of this Decision and be attached to this Decision.

3.  In the submissions for the Respondent, it is acknowledged that there were delays. The submission adopts the conventional practice of seeking 60% of the costs actually incurred. That came up with a figure of $40,000.

4.  The submissions for the Appellant following the Ruling of the 23rd of June, proposed that each party bear its own costs or as the saying goes, “costs lie where they fall”. In the Tribunal’s view, that is a wholly unrealistic submission given the extended hearing and the multiple grounds of appeal that were advanced, all of which were unsuccessful.

5.  There are in addition, the costs involved for three hearings. The venue hire, travel of the Tribunal Members to and from Christchurch and the audio recording of the proceedings. Those costs total close to $40,000. Further, there are the fees payable to the Tribunal Members.

6.  In the result, the three figures that are appropriate are as follows:

i.  The venue hire, travel and the audio recording – $36,900.
ii.  Costs of the RIB – the $40,000 figure can be appropriately reduced to $37,500.
iii.  The fees in respect of the Tribunal Members – $40,300.

These figures in total come to $114,700 and that is the costs award that will be required to be paid by the Appellant.

7.  Interestingly, the costs figure set here, is not dissimilar to the costs figure set by the Adjudicative Committee following its extended hearing.

RULING OF THE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
23rd June 2026

1.  In its decision of the 19th of May this year, the Tribunal set out directions as to costs: see paragraph 14.

2.  Submissions were received from counsel for the Respondent.

3.  Ms Thomas for the Appellant filed a memorandum dated the 15th of June. In that memorandum Ms Thomas related that she had requested from counsel for the Respondent individual invoices relied upon for each claim. The Respondent provided invoices relating to disbursements but declined to provide legal invoices.

4.  Counsel for the Respondent filed a memorandum responding dated the 16th of June. Reference had been made to a judgment of the High Court in McCallum Brothers Limited v Auckland Council. The legal counsel for the Respondent pointed out that the High Court judgment followed very extended proceedings in the Environment Court. It is the view of the Tribunal that the circumstances of that case are entirely different from the position here. The issue of whether legal invoices are required to be disclosed was considered by an Appeal Tribunal in the case of Alysha Waretini 21 July 2023. In that decision the Tribunal ruled that legal invoices were not required to be provided in support of a costs application.

5.  Consistent with the decision in Waretini the Tribunal rules that the legal invoices for the Respondent are not required to be made available. The High Court judgment referenced above involved proceedings that bear no similarity whatever to the matter currently before the Tribunal.

6.  To finalise the costs issue counsel for the Appellant will file further and final submissions on this issue by the 3rd of July. As earlier ruled those costs submissions are not to exceed 5 pages.

DATED this 23rd day of June 2026

Murray McKechnie
Chairman