An Auckland couple must pay the council $20,000 in costs associated with fighting their illegal earthworks. Photo / 123RF
An Auckland couple must pay the council $20,000 in costs associated with fighting their illegal earthworks. Photo / 123RF
It sought $20,000 in costs after an Environment Court case, but Auckland Council was left chasing the money when important paperwork relating to a long-running and bitter dispute was lost.
The court has now apologised to the council for the slip-up, which was identified by the council's legal team.
The latest legal decision was the finale to several years of mud-slinging over illegal excavation work on a couple's rental property in Avondale.
Alexander and Emanuella Banora told Open Justice in a blistering attack on Auckland Council that it was like the "mafia", and New Zealand courts, judges and lawyers were "corrupt".
An Auckland couple must pay the council $20,000 in costs associated with fighting their illegal earthworks. Photo / 123RF
They said they had little choice but to pay the $20,000 in costs after the latest legal fight.
"The decision is corrupt. Yes, we will pay the money. Do we have any choice?" Emanuella Banora said.
Alexander Banora was fined in 2019 for conducting earthworks on his property, reported at the time as "removal of 18 metres of footpath and concreting over a stormwater culvert".
He maintained that council works nearby had led to sewage being discharged onto his property, which was what he was trying to remedy.
Banora's unconsented works resulted in the closure of a public path to a council reserve, with earthworks spread over almost 700 square metres of flood-prone land.
A $67,000 fine was reduced on appeal to $44,550 – a "minor win", Banora said.
In 2016 the council sought the court's help in asking the Banoras to toe the line over the work they were doing on the property.
An enforcement order was issued, meaning the council was able to ask the Banoras to stop work that was in breach of its resource management rules.
Last month's costs decision is linked to the substantive decision in December 2019, when the Environment Court declined an application by the Banoras to once more vary the enforcement order made in 2016, which had already been altered with their consent.
Banora argued then he had been lured into agreeing to the alteration, which the court disputed.
An application for costs was made by the council in January 2020, but Judge Craig Thompson said in the recent decision that "regrettably" the file was misplaced, and the application was not actioned until an inquiry was made by the council.
"The file was located, and the matter drawn to my attention. I do apologise for that delay," Judge Thompson said.
As far as costs were concerned, he said excerpts from the substantive decision indicated "very clearly" the council was without blame in the issue.
The Banoras told Open Justice they moved to New Zealand in 1993 but declined to say where from.
Alexander Banora, an engineer formerly with New Zealand Steel, said at first they enjoyed living here, but say that view has now been coloured by their experiences.
They suggested they were "victims" and unjustly fined because they were foreigners.
Emanuella Banora felt that Auckland Council was as "powerful as Queen Elizabeth", while her husband described it as similar to the "mafia".
"The problem is, they can do whatever they want, and no one can do anything to them," they said.
A senior member of the council's legal services team, Christian Brown, told Open Justice the statements were completely false.
The court also noted in its earlier decision that the history of dispute between the Banoras and Auckland Council made "sad reading".
"Mr Banora has seemingly been quite unable to accept that those who have been engaged to advise and assist him have acted professionally; that the council simply, and rightly, wishes the land and the works on it to be 'put right'."
It said the courts were society's mechanism for resolving disputes objectively and according to law.
"It is regrettable that Mr Banora cannot accept that, but there is a time when the positions of other parties, and the bringing to finality of such a long-standing issue, must be given proper priority over his inability to accept that he has no demonstrable facts, fairness or merit on his side."
Judge Thompson agreed with the council's submission on the costs matter, that the arguments were without substance.
"There was no merit in Mr and Mrs Banora's position, and I have the very clear view that they should be required to reimburse the council for the costs to which it was put."
Christian Brown said it was not rare for the council to be awarded costs, particularly in cases where the proceedings brought were without merit.
