$110k dog fight: Council defends legal bill over off-leash walking decision

Wednesday, 1 April 2026

Auckland Council has paid close to $110,000 fighting a legal battle over its decision to remove the off-leash dog walking area in a popular suburban park, The Post can reveal.

While the council said it had no option but to pay the bill, the incorporated society at the centre of the dispute has slammed it as a “completely inappropriate” use of ratepayer dollars. It now faces the threat of a further battle over who should cover the costs, pending the outcome of the judicial review proceedings.

Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown has waded in too, calling it a “disgraceful” waste of money - but reserving his criticism for the group that launched the legal fight.

It follows a decision by the Puketāpapa Local Board last year to remove off-leash status from Monte Cecilia Park, in the western suburb of Hillsborough, prompting a group of dedicated dog owners to challenge that decision in court.

Public consultation had seen about 900 responses on the matter, with 88% against removing the off-leash bowl area. A petition opposing the decision with more than 1000 signatures was also handed to the board.

The two-day judicial review hearing took place in late February, during which Justice Andrew Becroft questioned the time and money being spent on fighting the case.

“I don’t want to diminish anyone’s emotional attachment to the area or their dogs,” Becroft said in the Auckland High Court, “but you’d think for what is a reasonably small area … that there might be a way of resolving it short of both sides throwing … the kitchen sink at the decision-making?”

In response to a request for official information, Auckland Council confirmed to The Post that it had incurred $109,768.41 in legal fees between July 2025 and March 20 this year, excluding GST, responding to the judicial review. It has also paid a $148 filing fee.

While the Dog Lovers of Monte Cecilia Incorporated Society were being represented pro bono by lawyer George Barton, Auckland Council hired a KC - Katherine Anderson - to argue their case.

Auckland Council’s general counsel Meredith Webb told The Post in a statement that there was “no choice” but to respond to the legal review and incur costs defending it.

“We have sought to deliver this litigation as cost-effectively as possible, using our internal team who appeared together with an external barrister at the hearing,” she said.

“Costs were larger than initially anticipated due to an interlocutory application that was later withdrawn by the applicant, the need to respond to lengthy legal submissions filed by the applicant and unexpected procedural steps.

“If we are successful in these proceedings, then the council will seek to recover costs.”

It’s understood that while the Dog Lovers of Monte Cecilia group was aware it could face a battle over costs, it was hoping council would not choose to go down that route.

As an incorporated society, no one person would be individually liable for costs.

Jonathan Sweeney, board chair of the Dog Lovers of Monte Cecilia group, said the council’s decision to hire a high profile lawyer to fight its case went against the claim it was trying to keep costs down.

“We were very fortunate that we had a junior barrister who walks his dog at the park, he has supplied his time pro bono. Now I'm not expecting the council to have the good fortune that we have had, but they [have] chosen … through their own ego and arrogance, to engage a leading KC,” he said.

Sweeney said the group did not take responsibility for the fact ratepayer funds were being used to fund a battle they initiated.

“I don't mean that dismissively, we have followed the process that we were aware that we could follow to result in the action that has taken place,” he said. “As a group of volunteers, there has been zero time, patience, inclination to want to drag this thing out any longer than it has.

“So I'm actually quite offended that they feel that we've been in a situation that we have been trying to spend more money. We had a group of us doing a sausage sizzle at Bunnings to pay for some of our admin costs. So why we would want to drag this thing out and spend any more money is quite beyond me.”

Mayor Brown, who has been vocal about wanting value for ratepayer dollars, did not mince his words when asked for comment.

“It's a disgraceful waste of money brought by a small group of people who don't understand the costs that they inflict on society,” he said, taking aim at the dog owners.

During the judicial review proceedings, Justice Becroft urged the two parties to find a solution to their dispute outside court.

Josh Van Veen, spokesperson for the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance, said that would have been the appropriate way forward and took aim at the council for fighting its own residents.

'Instead of wasting ratepayer money and court time defending a deeply unpopular decision, Auckland Council and the Puketāpapa Local Board should have honoured the public consultation,” he told The Post.

“The community was asked to have their say - and did. But instead of accepting that outcome, Auckland Council has chosen to dig deep into ratepayers’ pockets and double down on a decision locals have already rejected.'

Sweeney, in an earlier statement, said the council was unwilling to come to the table even after the hearing.

“The society convened a meeting and formally submitted a proposal to the Puketāpapa Local Board and Auckland Council titled ‘A Roadmap to Peace’,” he said at the time.

“Despite the proposal being submitted in good faith, [Dog Lovers of Monte Cecilia] was advised on March 6 that Auckland Council wanted the matter referred back to the Court rather than entering into negotiations.”