The council withdrew its abatement and infringement notices a month later after the land use consent documents were discovered by an employee of Peters, acting for Daisley.
Daisley claims the council's breach of its duty of care resulted in loss of revenue, its actions diminished the value of his property, and he incurred losses while making resource consent applications. He has since sold the quarry.
In the High Court, Daisley said WDC breached its statutory duty under the Resource Management Act 1991 and was negligent when issuing the abatement, infringement and enforcement notices.
His claim against Peters was that the lawyer was instructed to consider and advise him as to whether WDC was responsible for the infringement actions and on his options against WDC.
Justice Anne Hinton declined to grant leave for Daisley to make an application for summary judgment because she was not satisfied WDC had no arguable defence. She said Daisley's application was out of time, being brought two-and-a-half years after the key factual matters became known to him.
Daisley's main claim against WDC and Peters is still before the court.
