The last-minute shot from stadium
opponents to legally challenge the Dunedin City Council on
its support for the project has come up short, with Stop the
Stadium's lawyer failing to convince a High Court judge his
arguments stood up to scrutiny.
Justice Lester Chisholm gave a lengthy decision yesterday
morning, with Dunedin Mayor Peter Chin and city council chief
executive Jim Harland looking on from the council's side,
Stop the Stadium president Bev Butler and her husband Peter
Attwooll for opponents, and a considerable media contingent.
It was not obvious until the end of Justice Chisholm's speech
what the outcome would be, but his last words were clear.
"The plaintiff has failed to get past first base" in an
attempt to convince the court there were further direct and
indirect costs to the council from changes in the financial
structure of the project, he said.
"As a result, this application is dismissed."
The case came down to whether the changes to the project
since last year's council annual plan were different to a
"significant" degree, to the point the council would have to
again consult with the public, delaying the signing of a
contract to build the stadium.
The meaning of the word "significant", in particular in
relation to the Local Government Act, was discussed at length
on Thursday.
Stop the Stadium counsel Len Andersen claimed the key points
that had changed since the latest annual plan included the
cost of $198 million, which previously was not to have
exceeded $188 million; the $10 million expected from the
Community Trust of Otago that had dropped to $7 million; and
the requirement for bridging loans to cover private sector
funding.
Mr Andersen calculated there was $13 million he said the
public had not been told about, from the extra $10 million
the project would cost, and the $3 million shortfall from the
community trust.
He used a spread sheet to argue the council's figures did not
add up.
The council, through its lawyer Frazer Barton, said the
project was a "moving feast", and while there had been
changes, the cost to the council and ratepayers had not
changed.
Mr Barton also told the judge quite clearly the council had
spent more than $52 million, and was keen to begin the
project.
"This is about the legality of the project, not the wisdom or
otherwise," Justice Chisholm said in his decision.
The primary issue was whether the changes would have a
significant effect on the council.
He accepted the project's capital costs had increased, but
that was offset by the Government's $15 million grant.
The overall costs were important, the rest "irrelevant".
Justice Chisholm said he had struggled with the evidence on
the revenue aspect of the project.
Mr Andersen's attack had been on several fronts, with his
arguments long-term debt had risen to $108 million, the $5
million ratepayers had to pay annually would not cover
interest costs, bridging loans must cost the council, and the
Government's $15 million had somehow been counted twice.
"I have to say I don't follow the submission and I don't
accept it," Judge Chisolm said.
He said he was "very wary" of Mr Andersen's spread sheet.
The figures had been presented by Mr Andersen and in an
affidavit from University of Otago accounting lecturer Nicola
Holman, but there was no analysis to go with them.
"Clearly, I am faced with sharply competing allegations."
The financial arrangements were complex, and it was
impossible for him to do an analysis himself.
The plaintiff had failed to show there was a direct or
indirect cost to the council or ratepayers because of the
cost increases, he said, dismissing the application.
Costs were reserved.
