Mr Walker – Fail!

UPDATING

“The application for judicial review of the Council’s decision is dismissed.”

further

“There is no reason why costs should not follow the event. The ORC is therefore entitled to costs on a category 2B basis together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.”

High Court judgement: Walker v ORC

****

### ODT Online Thu, 11 Jun 2009
Bid to derail stadium funding dismissed

Full coverage tomorrow.Queenstown man Basil Walker’s court bid to derail the Forsyth Barr Stadium has been dismissed.
ODT Link

****

Basil Walker is not ruling out an appeal…

### ODT Online Fri, 12 Jun 2009
Bid fails to block stadium grant
By David Loughrey

Queenstown man Basil Walker has been unsuccessful in his attempt to block the Otago Regional Council granting $37.5 million for the Forsyth Barr Stadium after failing to persuade a High Court judge the funding process was unlawful.
Read more

****

### National Business Review Friday June 12 2009 – 11:08am
Dunedin rugby stadium steamrolls over latest legal challenge
By Robert Smith

The latest legal bid to tackle Dunedin’s Forsyth Barr Stadium has been fended aside by the High Court, with the Queenstown bankrupt who brought the action now liable for thousands of dollars in legal costs.
Read more

Advertisements

6 Comments

Filed under Economics, Geography, Hot air, Media, Politics, Stadiums

6 responses to “Mr Walker – Fail!

  1. Elizabeth

    Hark, to this bit in the judgement of Lang J (see my italics):

    “[85] Mr Walker also objected to the fact that the ORC was effectively making a gift or donation to the construction project when there is no guarantee that it can even be completed. The answer to this submission lies in the fact that it will be the DCC’s obligation to complete the project. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the DCC will not have the ability to complete the project whatever the ultimate cost to its ratepayers might be. The DCC has also limited its exposure to cost overruns to some extent by entering into a contract that has a Guaranteed Maximum Price.”

    ****

    Are we ready to pay through the nose as Judge Lang opines.
    That’s DCC’s own hunk of slime.

  2. “[50] Mr Walker bases his argument on this point upon the following allegations:
    a) The ORC is in breach of s 97(2)(a) and (b) of the Act because it has failed to explicitly provide for critical aspects of the decision in its proposal to amend the 2006-2016 plan, in the amendments that were eventually adopted in relation to that plan and in its proposed 2009- 2019 plan.
    b) It is also in breach of the same provisions because it has failed to explicitly disclose in those documents the impact of GST upon the contribution that the ORC is to make to the project. ”

    And what did the judge surmise from this:

    “[58] Importantly, the proposal contained two spreadsheets in which the interest incurred by the borrowings was shown as an expense from the 2009/10 year to the 2015/16 year.”

    Could I be kind and suggest that Mr Walker didn’t see these two spreadsheets showing the interest incurred, or why would he say that the ORC failed to show interest incurred?

    Funny, the Judge did state that two things have changed in their plan, one they’d be making repayments in smaller amounts and that interest rates were now 8% not 9%. Funny.

  3. Pretty clear conclusion from the judge

    “Conclusion

    [62] The above analysis demonstrates that, from the outset, the ORC’s documents have expressly referred to the fact that the ORC’s contribution to the stadium project is to be fully funded by borrowings. They also expressly refer to the fact that the borrowings will attract interest of between eight and nine per cent per annum. The likely cost of interest has also been depicted in the spreadsheets included within each document. Ratepayers also knew, because they were expressly told in the documents, that the ORC intended to recover a significant proportion of the cost and repayment of the borrowings by using its rating powers.”

  4. LG

    The judgement seems to refute arguments around GST, which is interesting.

  5. The judgement not only refutes but makes perfectly clear the issues surrounding GST, and only confirms what we have been told right from the start.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s