Whangārei District Council ordered to pay man $4.3 million over negligence in closing his quarry

Contractor Jim Daisley says winning $4.3 million from Whangārei District Council after a 17-year-battle is bittersweet - saying the issue should have been sorted years ago. Photo / Michael Cunningham

A Northland man who claims his life was almost ruined by Whangārei District Council after it closed his quarry - despite it having consent - has been awarded almost $4.3 million in damages and costs.

Jim Daisley operated a quarry on a property in Knight Rd, Ruatangata, after buying it from the previous owner in December 2004.

The property had been used for quarrying for several decades beforehand, and the quarry operations had not been challenged, disputed or prohibited at any time. Daisley had big plans, intending to not only extract metal for use in his contracting business, Daisley Contracting, but also to sell quarried minerals to local farmers and other contractors.

However, Whangārei District Council (WDC) issued an abatement notice, directing the quarrying operation to cease in February 2005, only seven weeks after he bought the property. The notice said he needed to get a resource consent issued to carry out quarrying at the property. The council threatened enforcement action if he did not.

The council said the reasons for the abatement notice included the assertion that the removal of material at the property was neither expressly allowed by a resource consent or an existing use right.

Daisley has been fighting to challenge the decision and get the council to admit it was wrong to close him down.

His fight - which he admits nearly broke him and caused major financial and other problems - has now seen a High Court judge award him $4,279,622, plus interest and costs, after the court found the council liable in negligence to Daisley and awarded him damages.

A WDC spokesperson said the council would not comment on the judgment until its lawyers had the chance to closely examine the decision.

Daisley said he was delighted to have got the judgment in his favour after years of fighting, but disappointed that it had taken so long and that ratepayers will now have to foot the bill.

He said the case was never about money but justice for the poor actions of the council that had almost ruined his life. He had lost his home and property, family members and friends, but he was so thankful for the support of so many that helped him get through the struggle.

"There have been so many people that have stuck with me and helped along the way and I just want to thank them all,'' Daisley told the Northern Advocate.

At one stage he was threatened with bankruptcy and also to be taken to the Environment Court over the issue, where he could have faced imprisonment.

''The bizarre thing is ratepayers - and I'm a ratepayer - will have to pick up this bill, but it did not need to get to this stage. The council could have stopped it all those years ago by just admitting that it was wrong.

''It lost the consent (for the quarry) and later found it in 2009 but for some reason it still didn't admit anything and kept pursuing me. I felt targeted and the whole experience had been very nasty throughout.

''I think the council may have hoped I would walk away, but I was determined to fight all the way. It's wonderful that a judge has finally put things straight.''

Daisley claimed in the court that WDC's repeated denials that a valid consent existed, and its continued obstruction of his intended quarrying activities between February 2005 and January 2010, were unlawful and in breach of the council's statutory and common law duties towards him.

He also claimed that council officers were guilty of misfeasance in public office in that they knowingly and deceptively denied the existence of a valid consent, or were wilfully blind to the existence of the consent, and misled the Hearings Commissioner about its existence when Daisley applied for a resource consent in 2006. The council denied his claims entirely.

But Justice Kit Toogood found the council breached its common law duties to Daisley continually from November 2004 to September 2009.

Daisley sold the Knight Rd property in December 2009, the day before a mortgagee sale, for around 25 per cent below market value.

"The council's negligence was the real and effective cause of loss suffered by Mr Daisley, including loss of profits from his inability to establish a commercial quarrying business; loss of value of the Knight Rd property; and loss incurred through costs directly related to the consequences of the council's negligence,'' Justice Toogood said in his decision.

He found Daisley did not contribute to the negligence.

He awarded Daisley damages of $4,089,622 for loss of profits; damages of $90,000 for loss of the value of the Knight Road property; damages of $50,000 for the recovery of direct costs and exemplary damages of $50,000.

The judge also allowed interest on the damages other than exemplary damages at the rate of five per cent per annum from August 14, 2015, until the date of this judgment, and at five per cent per annum thereafter until payment.

The council will also have to pay Daisley's costs, which have yet to be determined.

Daisley said the award would help him move on but would never make up for the 17 years of trauma he has endured fighting his case.

''I hope that's the end of it now,'' he said.