Proceedings on council rating of Marsden City land stayed

Marsden City Limited Partnership is disputing the way its land had been valued by Whangarei District Council. PHOTO/MICHAEL CUNNINGHAM

The High Court will not hear a claim by a land-based investment and development company over the way its various parcels of land had been valued south of Whangārei.

Marsden City Limited Partnership owns 87 parcels of land at One Tree Point and following the 2018 revaluation by the Whangārei District Council, the company filed objections to the Land Valuation Tribunal.

Marsden City and WDC accepted the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to decide on two issues raised by the company.

First, a dispute on the rating category applied on the land at One Tree Point and the council not amalgamating the various parcels of land into one rating unit for rating purposes.

Rather than apply to the High Court for a judicial review of WDC’s decisions, Marsden City sought declarations but without reference in the statement of claim to any particular law or any other basis for the court’s jurisdiction.

The statement of claim sought a declaration its land should have been valued on the basis of several records of title comprising a single rating unit. It also sought a declaration that the basis of value should not be the property’s zoning for each record of title but as a single rating unit used for pastoral farming.

Marsden City sought an order setting aside the valuations and directing WDC to undertake new ones taking into account declarations sought.

The parties settled the course of action in respect of a declaration that the basis of value should not be the property’s zoning for each record of title but as a single rating unit used for pastoral farming.

The only remaining issue in respect of which the tribunal considered it did not have jurisdiction is whether the 87 properties comprise a “single rating unit”.

Different lawyers appeared for the parties in the High Court and accepted the tribunal did have jurisdiction to determine the issue.

Lawyers for WDC submitted it would be open to the High Court to direct that the proceedings be treated as if they were an application for judicial review and invited the court to do so.

But Justice Christine Gordon said there were two difficulties with that submission. First, the way Marsden City framed its case was not an attack on WDC’s decision and secondly, the court was also asked to make decisions on disputed factual matters.

She stayed Marsden City’s claim pending further order of the court. “The court anticipates that the proceeding will be stayed at least until the decision of the tribunal on the objections before it and possibly pending the outcome of an appeal to this Court, if any appeal were to be heard prior to and separately from this stayed proceeding,” Justice Gordon said.