A Bank of New Zealand director and Treasury board member - who lost a driveway wrangle with her neighbours in the upmarket Auckland suburb of Remuera - was back in the High Court this morning for a fight over legal costs.
Susan Macken, who has also served as a directorof Southern Cross Healthcare, lives on a $1.6 million home at the front of a site she subdivided 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 Ronald and Kathleen Jervis.
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.
Although both sides are seen as "intelligent people", they were unable to resolve the matter and ended up in a four-day High Court hearing in front of Justice Paul Heath.
The trustees that own Macken's property applied during the hearing for "reasonable access" to it.
They wanted Macken to be allowed 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.
While the Macken trustees argued her property had become landlocked, the Jervises disputed this.
Justice Heath, in his decision, 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 and dismissed late last year.
That decision was not appealed but both sides were back before the same judge this morning arguing about court costs.
In most civil litigation the loser pays a portion of the winner's legal expenses.
But the Jervises' lawyer, Stuart Connolly, said today that his clients should get more than the usual amount because they made three offers to settle the dispute before it went to trial.
One offer, made in August last year, gave Macken everything she wanted if she paid $9000 in legal costs, he said.
"In a monetary sense, there is no way she could get a better deal," Connolly said.
Susan Macken, pictured in 2010.
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.
Justice Heath did not reveal a decision at the end of the hearing this morning but said he hoped to release it in a couple of weeks.
Part of the problem in the wider dispute, according to Justice Heath's original decision from December, was that the Jervises had kept a gate at the end of their driveway.
While the parties negotiated over access, the judge said they reached an impasse when the Jervises wouldn't allow their neighbour to use her vehicle over their driveway strip "seemingly as a result of Dr Macken's refusal to agree to the gate remaining in place".
