Mobil escapes $10m tank farm cleanup - NZ.

Page  123>
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote PriceofFish Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Mobil escapes $10m tank farm cleanup - NZ.
    Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 6:53am
PriceofFish View Drop Down
Silver
Silver
Avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2016
Location: whitianga
Status: Offline
Points: 122
Another example of KIWI intellectual incompetence  - Yesterdays NZ Herald.

Oil giant Mobil has escaped a $10 million bill for the clean-up of a heavily contaminated area of Auckland's Wynyard Quarter after winning an appeal in the Supreme Court.

Publicly-owned Waterfront Auckland must now also pay Mobil close to $1 million in court costs for its failed attempt to get the oil company to foot the bill.

Mobil Oil leased two properties in Auckland's waterfront 'tank farm' for more than 50 years.

When Mobil's lease for the two sites ended in 2011, it was found the land they were on had been heavily contaminated.

While it was established the company was not solely responsible for contamination to the land - other oil companies as previous tenants and neighbouring tenants all contributed too - Waterfront Auckland claimed Mobil had to deliver the land in a completely "uncontaminated condition" at the end of its lease term.


The 5 Kiwi Judges presiding over this case should be sent to Invercargill, Gisborne,Whangarei or some other shiithole in New Zealand to work it outLOL almost forgot HamiltonShocked

      CEO - Pugsy Corporation Inc.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Kevin.S Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 7:39am
Kevin.S View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Location: Waiuku
Status: Offline
Points: 6769
I think Waterfront Auckland have to share the blame here, if they had been reasonable and asked for a contribution towards the clean up they may have done better.  Insisting Mobil foot the bill for all of it, including the stuff they weren't responsible for, was never going to stick but they battled on with it through the courts wasting money that could have been spent cleaning up the mess.

When you move into a rental property the landlord expects to get it back in the same condition it was when you rented it.  They don't expect it to nave a new roof and be repainted, which is what Waterfront Auckland were asking for.  Much as I do think Mobil should have paid towards the clean up I can see why they fought the case, as becoming responsible for "completely decontaminating" the site could have been a massive liability.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Marligator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 8:36am
Marligator View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 07 Sep 2004
Location: Papamoa
Status: Offline
Points: 6162
From what I have seen when the court awards costs against the initiator of the legal action (WaterFront Auckland in this case) it usually means they had a very flimsy case at best. If it is a close run thing then the courts often do not award costs either way and if the initiator is clearly correct they will often award costs on top of any penalties awarded against the defendant.
 
So my take on this is that Waterfront Auckland did not really have a case against Mobil.
 
Also Puggy those judges are not dumb people, it is not just 1 but 5 very senior judges who made this decision and they would have made a "informed" decision based on the full information given to them not just the little bits the media want us to hear.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Steps Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 9:07am
Steps View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 14 Oct 2013
Location: Franklin
Status: Offline
Points: 12849
This has been going on for some time.. I think Kevin and Marl.. hit the nail on the head...
Blame the lawyers...or those who maybe didnt follow their advice...going for the full amount could not stand up....but if the case went for what they where due for  (IF Mobil had refused to come to the table for their share) that would most properly have won ....
So now we have Mobil walk away and rate payer pick up the bill... all because people got greedy.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote OuttaHere Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 11:16am
OuttaHere View Drop Down
Platinum
Platinum


Joined: 05 Oct 2015
Location: NZ
Status: Offline
Points: 2707
Award of costs is interesting, normally you just get "standard" costs which tend to actually be a fraction of the actual bill, if they're getting their full costs then it will be because the case was weak to start with, Mobil pointed out that the case was weak, and there may have been a good-faith offer from Mobil to settle it for an amount considered reasonable that was rejected by WA.
 
All speculation of course.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Kevin.S Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 12:09pm
Kevin.S View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Location: Waiuku
Status: Offline
Points: 6769
Of course, one of the big problems here is the total unaccountably of bodies such as Waterfront Auckland.  It's easy to pursue a weak case on the off chance of winning if you don't have to pay for it and won't be held to account if you fail.

Mobil were awarded $1million in costs, so we can probably assume that Waterfront Auckland spent a similar amount in legal fees.  That's $2million or so of ratepayers money wasted.  Heads should roll and people should get sacked, but we all know what will actually happen -nothing.  They will just continue to take their big fat salaries while delivering more crap outcomes.  This is the problem across all Auckland council connected bodies, and probably most public bodies around the country.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote v8-coupe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 12:33pm
v8-coupe View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2002
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 4108
Originally posted by Marligator Marligator wrote:


From what I have seen when the court awards costs against the initiator of the legal action (WaterFront Auckland in this case) it usually means they had a very flimsy case at best. If it is a close run thing then the courts often do not award costs either way and if the initiator is clearly correct they will often award costs on top of any penalties awarded against the defendant.
 
So my take on this is that Waterfront Auckland did not really have a case against Mobil.
 
Also Puggy those judges are not dumb people, it is not just 1 but 5 very senior judges who made this decision and they would have made a "informed" decision based on the full information given to them not just the little bits the media want us to hear.



Maybe. However I believe many of these so called learned Judges live in cloud cuckoo land judging (pun intended) by some of the decisions we have seen lately. The case was fought over legal semantics as is normally the case. It just happens the defendants Lawyers had the better gift of the gab than the other side. Do not forget the council had won once. It was in the higher court where the Judges are really out of touch with reality and real life after living in the rarified air of their own world that the decision was reversed. Mobil was there for fifty odd years, long enough to warrant a clean up. This is an example of why I do not respect legal documents and the Legal profession in general. Nothing is black and white even if it says so in writing. There is always some smart arse Lawyer that will argue black is white and white is black. Throw in Judges who can quote you the law backwards but have absolutely no commonsense or life experience and some of the outcomes are ludicrous.
The law was designed as a tool to help protect the people. However, more and more it is being used as a club by business, Government and other vested interests to control and manipulate the very people it is supposed to protect. More and more people are being forced to prove their innocence rather than the other way around.
Legasea Legend Member
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Marligator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 1:10pm
Marligator View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 07 Sep 2004
Location: Papamoa
Status: Offline
Points: 6162
V8 I know what you are saying, but what we do not know with this judgement is whether it was a majority or unanimous decision reached by the 5 judges, if it is a unanimous decision then there were some serious failings in Waterfront's case/arguments and my suspicion given Mobil was awarded costs of a $1M it was a unanimous decision.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote PriceofFish Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 1:23pm
PriceofFish View Drop Down
Silver
Silver
Avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2016
Location: whitianga
Status: Offline
Points: 122
The main issue as I see it is how a Kiwi run court case involving mostly Kiwi elements ( prosecution, defense and judging panel) construct a result that gives MOBIL International a get out of jail card! 

Sure the total responsibilities should not all fall in Mobil's plate but they certainly do have a degree of responsibility.....zero according to the Kiwi judging panel! 

The site in case has been a transit area for years and years 50+ with all sorts of dangerous products being handled there; chemicals, cement, petroleum etc....

Spillages years ago used to be hosed into the "sparkling" Waitemata.Smile 

Nota. Germany has very strict environmental controls actively in place that insist that the companies that have used sites restore the locations to a set of certified standards. In other words to a safe non-toxic condition.
      CEO - Pugsy Corporation Inc.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote pompey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 1:27pm
pompey View Drop Down
Platinum
Platinum


Joined: 02 Sep 2011
Location: kerikeri
Status: Offline
Points: 1349
I don't know the facts, however,  the land is contaminated and Mobil must have contributed to the contamination. In my opinion they are liable for at least part of the clean up cost. I wonder if they feel responsible in any way and are prepared to make a without prejudice offer. 
Waterfront Auckland have had poor advice or simply thought they MAY win and what the heck, it's only ratepayers money.
Regarding judges. I am certainly not confident five judges could hear evidence in a case and all make the right decision. Legal case history is littered with absent minded judges decisions.
As usual the big losers are the ratepayers and the winners, the lawyers.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Southern_Jez Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 1:31pm
Southern_Jez View Drop Down
Platinum
Platinum
Avatar

Joined: 25 May 2011
Location: Foveaux Striat
Status: Offline
Points: 2025
You guys know you can read the full judgements of most cases that come out of the high court right? I know it will impact on your ability to go off half cocked and what not, but still ... 

http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/from/decisions/judgments

Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote pjc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 1:41pm
pjc View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2010
Location: papakura
Status: Offline
Points: 12468
Where the current container terminal is.(mechanics bay).never heard or read about shell contaminating the ground there.why has Mobil contaminated the ground?
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Kevin.S Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jul 2016 at 2:05pm
Kevin.S View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Location: Waiuku
Status: Offline
Points: 6769
Originally posted by Southern_Jez Southern_Jez wrote:

You guys know you can read the full judgements of most cases that come out of the high court right? I know it will impact on your ability to go off half cocked and what not, but still ... 

http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/from/decisions/judgments


Thanks for the link, very interesting.  It seems that Development Auckland were clutching at straws somewhat by trying to imply that Mobil had any responsibilities based on the lease conditions.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Southern_Jez Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jul 2016 at 12:23pm
Southern_Jez View Drop Down
Platinum
Platinum
Avatar

Joined: 25 May 2011
Location: Foveaux Striat
Status: Offline
Points: 2025
hahahaha seems like you post some facts and the thread dies ... LOL (need a "5hit stirrer" emoticon)
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote PriceofFish Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jul 2016 at 12:34pm
PriceofFish View Drop Down
Silver
Silver
Avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2016
Location: whitianga
Status: Offline
Points: 122
Originally posted by Southern_Jez Southern_Jez wrote:

hahahaha seems like you post some facts and the thread dies ... Clown (need a "5hit stirrer" emoticon)

What are you doing today then? LOL
      CEO - Pugsy Corporation Inc.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (1) Likes(1)   Quote Steps Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jul 2016 at 1:15pm
Steps View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 14 Oct 2013
Location: Franklin
Status: Offline
Points: 12849
 (need a "5hit stirrer" emoticon)

         
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote v8-coupe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jul 2016 at 1:30pm
v8-coupe View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2002
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 4108
Originally posted by Southern_Jez Southern_Jez wrote:

hahahaha seems like you post some facts and the thread dies ... LOL (need a "5hit stirrer" emoticon)


Thanks for the link.
Worked my way through it and I was correct.
Legal semantics.
Once again it is a case of the law overriding commonsense to the detriment and expense of the public, tax and rate payer.
It appears the council was not even asking for the full estimated amount. Only one fifth.
Seems accountability is only for those who can not pay to avoid it.
Legasea Legend Member
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (1) Likes(1)   Quote ww Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jul 2016 at 1:38pm
ww View Drop Down
Bronze
Bronze


Joined: 22 Jul 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 6
In the spirit of not being scumbags they might have found some middle ground? Its not like $10m is going to hurt Mobil in the wallet, hope they take a big reputation hit on this. 
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote PriceofFish Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jul 2016 at 3:22pm
PriceofFish View Drop Down
Silver
Silver
Avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2016
Location: whitianga
Status: Offline
Points: 122
To V8 & WW - Your points are all good. 

For me I just can't understand how a New Zealand legal dispute fought between a group of Kiwi's could rule in favor of a Corporation (with a record of environmental disasters).

I would of HOPED that the legal firms  (both parties)  would of fought a legal dispute that wasn't decided by an interpretation of contractual clauses. Both Kiwi parties should of met and agreed that Mobil was liable for a reparation payment, in doing so they would of taken the responsibilities & costs from the rate payers and charged the business that contributed to the polluting of the site. 
This decision really shows how intellectually lost many NZ companies (government bodies) are, examples operating everywhere here in Kiwiland.  Any decision must be made in favor of the citizen in these instances and not corporate business.
      CEO - Pugsy Corporation Inc.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Southern_Jez Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jul 2016 at 3:37pm
Southern_Jez View Drop Down
Platinum
Platinum
Avatar

Joined: 25 May 2011
Location: Foveaux Striat
Status: Offline
Points: 2025
You cant look at a case such as this with emotion (something done a lot in this particular forum). NZ companies are doing the same overseas, Fonterra, Alliance, Zespri, and many others in primary industries that export significant amounts in global trade all exploit various local laws to suit their own ends (our timber trade to Japan has killed off multiple small Japanese towns that relied on that industry for survival, including the town my wife is from originally, about 25km north of Nagano). Fact of the matter is that the original lease was not written well enough, and this was exploited by the company to their advantage.

Do I think Mobil should have got off scott free? No I don't, however to the letter of their original lease they fulfilled their obligations of leaving the site in a "clean and tidy" manner. (who the hell pays these clowns to write such loose terms in contracts anyway?!?!)
Back to Top
Page  123>
Forum Jump
Forum Permissions View Drop Down


This page was generated in 0.257 seconds.

Fishing Reports Visit Reports

Saltwater Fishing Reports
Top of the South Fishing Report - 22/03/24

Tasman and Golden Bay snapper still running hot We are not far away from daylight... Read More >

22 Mar 2024
Saltwater Fishing Reports
Bay of Islands Fishing Report - 22/03/24

Variety is the spice of life On one recent trip, the plan was to spend a... Read More >

22 Mar 2024
Saltwater Fishing Reports
Hauraki Gulf Fishing Report - 22/03/24

Fish where the fish are! Catching fish or just going fishing? I tackle this issue... Read More >

22 Mar 2024
Saltwater Fishing Reports
Inner Hauraki Gulf Fishing Report - 22/03/24

Thoughtful tactics required for better fish Over the course of each year the fishing varies,... Read More >

22 Mar 2024
Fishing bite times Fishing bite times

Major Bites

Minor Bites

Major Bites

Minor Bites