High Court denies leave to appeal arising from cost order involving resource consent

In a judgment dated 21 April 2026, a High Court judge allowed the applicant’s appeal. However, the judge did not disturb the cost order upon determining that the District Court judge correctly found that the proposed works were not “required works” at the time. 

The High Court judge explained that the proposed works were currently lawful and were “required works” under s 313(1)(c) of the Property Law Act, as the applicant had obtained an extension to the resource consent, which had lapsed at the time of the District Court ruling, by the time of the High Court appeal. 

The applicant applied for leave for a second appeal to assail the High Court decision not to disturb the District Court cost order. 

In his proposed appeal, the applicant alleged that the District Court should have acted more expeditiously before the consent had expired, or should have deferred the application hearing pending the resolution of his appeal. 

Leave to appeal denied

On 8 June 2026, in Karmarkar v Rajsic [2026] NZHC 1586, the High Court judge declined leave to appeal upon seeing: 

• no sufficiently important issue to justify the cost and diversion of judicial resources that would arise from a second appeal 
• no important legal question in the proposed appeal, which essentially challenged the District Court procedure 

The High Court judge described the sum involved as relatively small compared with the expected appeal costs. The judge also found a level of circularity in the applicant’s argument, as the District Court process helped persuade the Auckland Council to issue the consent. 

The High Court judge explained that the council changed its position and consented “by a fine margin” after it considered the applicant’s sufficient efforts to obtain orders for contributions before the District Court and estimates of the proposed works. 

Cost award

On 9 June 2026, in Karmarkar v Rajsic [2026] NZHC 1604, the judge of the High Court of New Zealand ordered the respondents to pay the applicant: 

• $2,750 in costs at the self-represented litigant rate 
• $2,799.20 in disbursements 

The High Court judge then ordered the applicant to pay the respondents: 

• costs on a 2A basis for memoranda at two of the three conferences 
• costs on a 2B basis for appearances at two conferences 
• costs on a 2B basis on the interlocutory application to adduce fresh evidence 
• disbursements 

The High Court judge set off the the appellant’s and respondents’ cost awards. Thus, the judge ultimately ordered the applicant to pay: 

• $2,153.50 in costs and disbursements to the third and fifth respondents 
• $2,153.50 in costs and disbursements to the second and fourth respondents