There is no evidence the Queenstown Lakes District Council delegated its authority to chief executive Duncan Field when he issued a dangerous building notice for a Wanaka property, the Queenstown District Court heard yesterday.
Defence counsel David More, of Dunedin, made the comment in his opening statement after the prosecution closed yesterday.
Mr More told Judge David Holderness he questioned the validity of the notice, which would affect the council's nine Building Act charges against Wanaka Gym Ltd and the council's five Building Act charges against director Fiona Caroline Graham, of Wanaka.
Mr More submitted the notice was not issued by the council as a territorial authority under the Local Government Act, but was issued by Mr Field.
There was no evidence before the court the council had delegated that authority to Mr Field, or evidence he was allowed to issue the notice, Mr More said.
"That's an essential ingredient, a link in the chain of the prosecution."
Lakes Environmental compliance manager Tim Francis, for the prosecution, was cross-examined for most of the fourth day of the hearing.
Mr Francis said he and Lakes Environmental building manager Peter Laurenson were briefed by Mr Field about issues regarding 155 Tenby St, in Wanaka, owned by Wanaka Gym, soon after they started work in 2003.
The council was "extremely concerned" there would be deaths of tourists at the property as a result of the way it was used and its state, Mr Francis said.
Mr More proposed the council had long held a vendetta against Graham, which had come to a head with the prosecutions.
Graham was not notified of the council's resource consent application to change the zone of its land, which bordered Wanaka Gym's property, despite the consent hearing commissioner being the council's lawyer in civil proceedings against Wanaka Gym and Graham within a month of the hearing in 2003.
Mr Francis said the Resource Management Act set guidelines on who were deemed to be affected parties and commissioners did not make that determination.
There was no issue of conflict, he said.
Judge Holderness asked what relevance there was to the prosecutions.
Mr More said it was an example of the council acting unfairly against Graham.
"The prosecutions you have brought against her are motivated by bad faith," he said.
Mr Francis said he absolutely rejected the assertion and found it insulting.
He said he had not "evicted" any guests and he did not have a vendetta against the defendant.
The council's sole driver was its concern for the "dangerous state" of the building which Wanaka Gym and Graham had exposed to unsuspecting tourists, Mr Francis said.
He said 155 Tenby St had been used as visitor accommodation since 1997.
The notice was the council's only certainty of Wanaka Gym's compliance since an injunction in 2008, and it came after two unappealed abatement notices.
In response to council solicitor Richard Cunliffe's concerns about Mr More's line of questioning, Judge Holderness said he had given the defence a great deal of latitude and had been close to restraining Mr More.
However, the judge said he would take a wider view and wait until Graham gave evidence, then consider any application to call for rebuttal evidence.
Graham and Mr Laurenson were scheduled to inspect the property with independent Wanaka solicitor Melissa Harris yesterday afternoon.
Judge Holderness intended to visit the premises with Mr Cunliffe at a later time yesterday, with Mr More's agreement.
The hearing continues today.
