MEDIA RELEASE
WAIPA'S $88,343 LEGAL BILL: COUNCIL TOLD TO CORRECT MISLEADING COURT CLAIM
Lobbyist against white-collar crime and long-standing community advocate Suzie Edmonds is calling on Waipa District Council to withdraw and correct its public statement concerning $88,343.15 of ratepayer-funded legal costs associated with private Harassment Act proceedings recently taken against her.
The call follows public scrutiny by Waipa ratepayers over the expenditure and the Council's media statement of 6 August 2026, which sought to explain and justify ratepayer funding of a staff member's legal costs.
Edmonds says she has no involvement in how Waipa ratepayers choose to challenge or investigate the expenditure of their money.
"That is a matter for Waipa ratepayers and their Council. My concern is what the Council has now publicly said about the outcome of proceedings that actually concluded by consent … After the Court case I believed both parties had moved on as agreed by consent in the court … I am sure the Court would frown upon the recent public statement by Waipa District Council"
Edmonds says the context in which the proceedings arose is critical.
She has worked as a community advocate for decades and has spent more than eight years investigating, lobbying and advocating on matters arising from Tauranga City Council's actions regarding the Bella Vista development at The Lakes in Tauranga.
"I am an advocate and lobbyist. I believe strongly in public accountability, transparency, freedom of speech and the right of citizens to question public authorities on matters of genuine public interest."
"I was not some random person on social media targeting an individual, nor have I accepted the characterisation of my advocacy as abusive or harmful communication. I vigorously defended the commentary relied upon in the harassment proceedings as lawful public-interest commentary. It arose from new information concerning Council actions that became available almost eight years after homeowners were evicted from their homes."
Edmonds says Bella Vista affected 21 homeowners, as well as a developer and his family, businesses, contractors and creditors.
"This was and remains a significant matter of public interest. People who advocate on matters involving public authorities must be able to ask difficult questions, examine official documents and speak publicly about what those documents reveal and the actions of public officials involved."
Waipā District Council has now publicly confirmed that the total cost associated with the legal proceedings was $88,343.15 including GST.
"Ratepayers are entitled to question why $88,343.15 of their money was spent. I did not initiate the current ratepayer scrutiny and I am not directing it."
"But once the Council decided to publicly defend that expenditure by discussing the proceedings and their outcome, it assumed a responsibility to give the public an accurate account of what actually happened."
The Council's 6 August statement said:
"The court provided the outcome sought and I take heart from that as it sends a clear signal unacceptable online behaviour will not be tolerated."
Edmonds says that wording creates a seriously misleading impression that the Court determined she had engaged in harassment or "unacceptable online behaviour".
The proceedings concluded with a Restraining Order by Consent. There was no final judicial determination following the defended hearing that Edmonds had committed harassment.
Edmonds represented herself during the proceedings.
"I defended the case and put the public-interest context of my advocacy before the Court. I remained confident in my defence and I do not believe the evidence justified a finding of harassment against me."
"I ultimately agreed to a consent order to bring the litigation to an end. Consent is not a judicial finding of harassment, and I will not accept the outcome now being publicly portrayed as though the Court made such a finding against me."
Waipā District Council Chief Executive Steph O'Sullivan stated publicly:
"We sought advice and made the decision to bring the proceedings to ensure the Council met its legal obligations, in particular under the Health and Safety at Work Act."
However, Waipā District Council was not the named applicant in the Court proceedings.
Edmonds says the distinction is fundamental.
"Funding proceedings brought by an individual and the Council itself being the applicant are not the same thing. The proof is in the documentation."
Council records confirm that it funded external legal support through Meredith Connell and subsequently Buddle Findlay.
"If the Council says it made the decision to bring these proceedings, ratepayers are entitled to know precisely what that means, who authorised the expenditure and how that decision was made."
The Council has previously justified funding external legal support by referring to its obligations to protect staff health, safety and wellbeing. In February, it also relied on grounds including protecting employees from harassment and protecting the privacy of natural persons when withholding information requested under LGOIMA.
Edmonds says the Council subsequently released information identifying those involved and has now itself publicly discussed the proceedings.
"The Council cannot have this both ways. It cannot justify substantial expenditure of public money on the basis that it was protecting a staff member's health, safety and wellbeing, while subsequently placing information concerning the people and proceedings into the public domain itself."
"The Council's own failure to redact its LGOIMA disclosure is, in reality, a contradiction of its own health and safety claims."
Edmonds says the Council's decision to publicly characterise the outcome has now caused her to reconsider her decision to resolve the proceedings by consent.
"I agreed to the consent order in good faith. I wanted the litigation finished to save everyone further time, energy and financial burden, particularly as I was already aware that more than $30,000 had been spent by April."
Council records show that by 30 April 2026 it had paid $11,668.77 excluding GST to Meredith Connell and $22,508.14 excluding GST to Buddle Findlay.
"I remained confident in my defence throughout the hearing. However, I agreed to bring the matter to an end by consent. The Council has now taken that consent outcome and publicly portrayed it in a manner that suggests the Court ruled against me. It did not."
Edmonds says she is now considering obtaining legal advice about challenging the consent order so that the evidence can be judicially determined and a judgment delivered.
"I was prepared to walk away. The Council's own actions have now caused me to question whether that remains possible, and I will take advice on my options."
Edmonds is also mindful that further litigation could have significant consequences for Waipā ratepayers.
"Waipā ratepayers have already been left with a legal bill of $88,343.15. If I challenge the consent order and the matter returns to court, further legal costs could be substantial and the existing bill could potentially double."
"That is not an outcome I am seeking. I would much rather see the Council immediately withdraw its misleading commentary and issue an accurate statement about how these proceedings actually ended."
"Whether the Council would continue funding further litigation, and at what additional cost to ratepayers, would be for the Council to explain. What I will not do is sit back while I am publicly misrepresented, bullied or wrongly accused."
Edmonds says she has complied with the consent order and has deliberately not identified the other party in this media release.
"I did not put this matter back into the public arena. Waipā District Council did."
Edmonds has formally written to the applicant's lawyer requesting that Waipā District Council withdraw its 6 August statement and replace it with an accurate account of the outcome.
"My position is straightforward: there was no judicial finding that I committed harassment. The proceedings concluded by consent."
"If Waipā District Council wishes to publicly justify spending $88,343.15 of ratepayer money, it must not do so at the expense of my reputation by portraying a consent order as something it was not."
ENDS
Media contact:
Andrea Hoyle (Tauranga)
contact@taurangacitycouncilexposed.co.nz
www.taurangacitycouncilexposed.co.nz
https://www.facebook.com/taurangacitycouncilX
