Council seeks recovery of legal fees after $2.4m lawsuit against it dismissed
A recent court judgement showed the council had sought almost $43,000 from Sheeran to recover legal costs but Judge Andrew Skelton ruled the council was instead entitled to recover costs of about $20,000.
Sheeran, who was appealing the dismissal of his original case, sought a stay of execution of the costs order pending the outcome of his appeal, but this was declined.
In his ruling, Judge Skelton said the council and its ratepayers would be adversely affected by any stay of execution in that 'the recovery of costs will be delayed, possibly for some time'.
'The council and ratepayers have had to bear the costs of this proceeding since 2023 and are now having to bear the further costs of responding to Mr Sheeran's appeal,' Judge Skelton said.
He said Sheeran had 'contributed unnecessarily' to the time and expense of the proceeding.
'In particular, Mr Sheeran was advised by the solicitors for the council and the court that his claim for compensatory damages for personal injury would likely be dismissed or struck out,' he said.
'It was explained to Mr Sheeran that his claim is barred by s 317(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001, but he continued to pursue the claim.
'Mr Sheeran also apparently failed to follow my direction that he should obtain legal advice on his claim, including whether his claim should be amended to seek exemplary damages.
'I also explained that he should consider carefully whether he should be pursuing any claim against the council because of the likely cost consequences.'
LDR is local body journalism funded by RNZ and NZ on Air.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Trade Minister travelling to United States after to discuss 15 percent tariff
Todd McClay. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Agriculture, Trade and Investment Minister Todd McClay will be travelling to the United States to meet with his counterparts after President Donald Trump's 15 percent tariff on New Zealand exports was announced. The United States, New Zealand's second largest export market, imposed the higher-than-expected tariff after initially signalling a 10 percent rate. "Following the United States' 1 August decision to apply a 15 percent, or more, tariff to ever country with a trade surplus, this visit will be an opportunity to discuss the impact of that decision and better understand the factors that may influence future US tariffs," McClay said. "New Zealand and the United States have a long-standing, well-balanced trading relationship, with periods where the US has enjoyed a surplus and times, like now, when New Zealand has a modest one. Overall, our trade is complementary and reflects the strength of a long-standing partnership. "I will be seeking to understand the effect of any change in trade flows for example, if New Zealand's current surplus shifted to a deficit, and what that might mean for our exporters. "The US currently faces an average tariff of just 0.3 percent when exporting to New Zealand, far lower than what we face into their market. "It's important that we raise these concerns constructively, while reaffirming our commitment to the strong, cooperative relationship we have with the United States." McClay will stop in Saudi Arabia first, to advance bilateral trade and investment opportunities, and to discuss how best to leverage the New Zealand-Gulf Cooperation Council Free Trade Agreement, for which negotiations concluded last year. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Can my father's partner take his house?
RNZ's money correspondent Susan Edmunds answers your questions. Photo: RNZ Got questions? RNZ is launching a new podcast, No Stupid Questions with Susan Edmunds, next month. We'd love to hear more of your questions about money and the economy. You can send through written questions, like these ones, but - even better - you can drop us a voice memo to our email questions@ What happens if my father owns a house, but now has a partner for several years who moved in to the house and has put the power in her name to prove she's lived there for a certain time. If my father dies before her with no will, will she get the house or us kids? Justine Wood is a specialist trustee at Public Trust and helped me answer your question. Basically, when someone dies without a will, it's referred to as "dying intestate". That means specific legislation comes into play that determines who will get which bits of the person's estate. That means the partner may well be entitled to a share of the house. "Based on the family circumstances you've outlined, the partner may be entitled to receive the personal chattels, such as vehicles, furniture and jewellery, the first $155,000 of the estate and a third share of the remainder of the estate," she said. "This will depend on the couple meeting the legal criteria of having a de facto relationship at the time. The remaining two thirds of anything left would be distributed equally between his children. "Administering an estate when there is no will can be costly and take longer to sort out. Having a will helps your family understand what you'd like done with your estate after your gone - and it makes the process of managing your passing less stressful on loved ones." The Administration Act defines de facto relationship in line with the Property (Relationships) Act. This said a de facto relationship is a couple who are at least 18, living together as a couple and not married or in a civil union. Things that might be taken into account are the duration of the relationship, the nature and extent of common residence, whether there is a sexual relationship, the degree of financial interdependence and dependence, ownership of property, the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life, the care and support of children, performance of household duties and the reputation and public aspects of the relationship. It would make sense for your father to draw up a will. Even with a will, his partner may have rights under the Property (Relationships) Act - they may need to sign a contracting out agreement if he wants to ensure that the property is left to you. Are there any disadvantages in keeping KiwiSaver funds there in KiwiSaver after retirement age? Is it best to fill the forms now and take some, if not all? There really is no disadvantage to leaving your money in KiwiSaver once you're retired, if that's what makes the most sense for you at the moment. It would be a good idea to get some advice on the funds your money is invested in, though. Depending on how much you've got in your KiwiSaver, it might make sense to divide it up and invest it in a few different funds. You might have some in a conservative or even cash fund that you can tap into if you need it in the near term, for unexpected bills or things like that, some in a balanced fund for the medium term and then some money in a growth fund for the longer term. The growth fund will probably bump around a bit but should deliver better returns overall, which might help make your money last longer through your retirement. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Council seeks recovery of legal fees after $2.4m lawsuit against it dismissed
He sought $2.4m for lost earnings but the claim was not permissible under the ACC Act, which barred people from suing for personal injury, and the judge dismissed the case. A recent court judgement showed the council had sought almost $43,000 from Sheeran to recover legal costs but Judge Andrew Skelton ruled the council was instead entitled to recover costs of about $20,000. Sheeran, who was appealing the dismissal of his original case, sought a stay of execution of the costs order pending the outcome of his appeal, but this was declined. In his ruling, Judge Skelton said the council and its ratepayers would be adversely affected by any stay of execution in that 'the recovery of costs will be delayed, possibly for some time'. 'The council and ratepayers have had to bear the costs of this proceeding since 2023 and are now having to bear the further costs of responding to Mr Sheeran's appeal,' Judge Skelton said. He said Sheeran had 'contributed unnecessarily' to the time and expense of the proceeding. 'In particular, Mr Sheeran was advised by the solicitors for the council and the court that his claim for compensatory damages for personal injury would likely be dismissed or struck out,' he said. 'It was explained to Mr Sheeran that his claim is barred by s 317(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001, but he continued to pursue the claim. 'Mr Sheeran also apparently failed to follow my direction that he should obtain legal advice on his claim, including whether his claim should be amended to seek exemplary damages. 'I also explained that he should consider carefully whether he should be pursuing any claim against the council because of the likely cost consequences.' LDR is local body journalism funded by RNZ and NZ on Air. Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
