What began as a limited resource consent in 2015 to run commercial boat rides from a public pontoon on Kerikeri Inlet subsequently led to a full-blooded turf war between Chris Claydon and Far North District Council with complaints Claydon had usurped Council land for his own commercial benefit. The High Court heard evidence of Claydon surreptitiously getting power and fibre connected to the pontoon over Council objections, then disputing Council demands he remove infrastructure put on its land.
The High Court refused to block Council demands that Mr Claydon remove a gravelled driveway, power boxes, a security camera and a bollard – all of which gave Mr Claydon’s Electric Boat Company de facto control of public land.
Far North District owns the land in dispute, off Riverview Road.
The court was told one of Mr Claydon’s companies was given a 35 year Environment Court resource consent in 2015 to use and occupy the community pontoon for his commercial boating operation, over top of Council objections to the pontoon being used for commercial purposes.
This consent specifically required the pontoon remain available for use by others at all times, free of charge.
The court was told Mr Claydon sometimes lives on a yacht permanently moored at the pontoon.
In July 2020, Council declined Mr Claydon’s application to trench cables for phone and electricity plus a water supply from Riverview Road to the pontoon, a distance of about two hundred metres.
Despite this refusal, Mr Claydon had one of his companies agree with Chorus for installation of a fibre optic line.
When Council demanded work stop, Mr Claydon’s company sued Chorus in the Disputes Tribunal for breach of contract. While carefully stating that the case was not about who owned the land, the Tribunal ruled Chorus was liable to complete the contract, or pay $25,000 damages. It chose to finish the job.
In August 2022, another of Mr Claydon’s companies contracted with NZ Electricity Lines Ltd for installation of power cabling and power boxes.
This deal saw Mr Claydon’s company agreeing to do all the work at its cost, with Electricity Lines directors, families and close friends to have ‘free electric boat rides for life.’
As a matter of routine, Council staff signed off on the proposed works submitted in the name of NZ Electricity Lines with an accompanying traffic management plan. It was later suggested in court that names of those providing the supposed traffic management plan had been forged.
Mr Claydon applied to Minister of Energy and Resources for approval as an ‘electricity operator’ for the newly installed power service, telling Electricity Lines in December 2022 that ‘the minister must have been in a good mood’ to have granted Mr Claydon’s company ‘operator’ status when there was only one connection in use.
Status as an ‘operator’ gives rights to own the asset.
In the High Court, Justice Johnstone ruled the power cabinets installed had been incorrectly described in permit applications as infrastructure; supposedly as Electricity Act ‘works.’ They are in fact ‘electrical installations,’ which the Council may remove as unauthorised installations, he ruled.
Council took legal action after learning Mr Claydon was widening pedestrian access to the pontoon with a gravelled driveway, blocking public access with a bollard and parking his vehicle on site.
It demanded all unconsented work be removed.
Mr Claydon’s application for an injunction to protect the status quo was dismissed.
He was well aware of Council opposition to his ongoing campaign to upgrade infrastructure around the pontoon, Justice Johnstone said.
Mr Claydon did not have justice on his side, having employed imperfect legal workarounds to override Council objections, he ruled.
Ohana Ltd v. Far North District Council – High Court (28.08.25)
25.189