BNZ director dodges full legal bill over Remuera driveway spat

The disputed shared driveway. Photo / Nick Reed

A Bank of New Zealand director and Treasury board member has avoided having to pay her neighbours' full legal bill after losing a driveway wrangle in the upmarket Auckland suburb of Remuera.

Susan Macken and her neighbours - Ronald and Kathleen Jervis - have still been unable to resolve their differences even after going through a four-day High Court hearing.

Macken continues to drive her car over part of a driveway she has no legal right to and the Jervises shut their security gate over a section of the driveway the BNZ director should be able to access.

The dispute over the driveway, which Macken needs the whole width of to get into her garage, went to court last year where she argued her $1.6 million property was landlocked.

The trustees' that owned the property wanted Macken to be able to drive directly into her garage and for vehicles to travel to the boundary of the Jervis' property, so items could be loaded or removed from the rear of it.

The genesis of the wrangle follows Macken subdividing her site in 2010.

When this project was taking place, the former World Bank economist intended for two strips of land to be created for a common driveway.

One of these strips would be part of the Macken property and the other would be part of the house at the back, which is now owned by the Jervises.

It was the plan that both parties would have mutual rights of way over the strips so they could both reach and park at their homes.

However, an accidental omission from the subdivision plan meant while the Jervises can use both strips, Macken can only use her one.

Justice Paul Heath, in his decision last December, took the view the property was not landlocked and mentioned there was pedestrian, bicycle and motorcycle access to it.

Given the property was not landlocked, Justice Heath said he did not have the jurisdiction to grant the application for access and dismissed late last year.

Last month, both sides were back before the same judge arguing over costs.

In most civil litigation the loser pays a portion of the winner's legal expenses.

But the Jervises' lawyer, Stuart Connolly, argued that his clients should get more than the usual amount because they made three offers to settle the dispute before it went to trial.

Connolly submitted that his clients were entitled to either indemnity or increased legal costs because it was unreasonable for the trustees to reject the offers.

On the other hand the Macken trustees' lawyer, Fergus Whyte, argued his clients should pay no costs at all or reduced costs because of the way the Jervises had allegedly run their side of the case.

In his decision on costs, Justice Heath said he was not prepared to award indemnity or increased costs because the settlement offers were refused.

Nor was he prepared to refuse or reduce costs because of the Jervises' conduct.

"In my view, each of the parties (at various times) acted unreasonably," he said.

He awarded standard costs to the Jervises, as the successful side in the legal action.

His decision did not state how much was awarded but such disputes often cost at least tens of thousands of dollars.

Read the full decision here: