The Hawaii Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of Tyler Ralston, ordering Resorttrust Hawaii, LLC (RTH) to pay attorney fees in a land use case. The court's decision, issued on August 12, 2026, clarifies the application of the private attorney general (PAG) doctrine, which allows individuals to recover attorney fees when they vindicate important public rights. This ruling is significant for Ralston and could impact future cases involving public land use and the rights of individuals to contest government decisions.
The case, Ralston v. Board of Land and Natural Resources, SCWC-22-0000402, began when Ralston challenged the Hawaii Board of Land and Natural Resources’ (BLNR) decision to renew a permit for RTH to use ceded lands in front of the Kahala Hotel. Ralston argued that the renewal process denied him a contested case hearing (CCH), which he believed was necessary to protect public interests. The court's ruling not only addresses Ralston's request for attorney fees but also highlights the importance of public participation in land use decisions.
Background
In January 2019, BLNR issued RTH a revocable permit to use ceded lands for recreational purposes, requiring RTH to pay a monthly rent. Over the years, RTH received consecutive one-year extensions of this permit. In 2021, during a public meeting, Ralston requested a CCH regarding the permit renewal, arguing that the permit conditions favored hotel guests over the general public.
Despite Ralston's objections, BLNR denied his request for a CCH and approved the permit renewal for 2022. Ralston subsequently appealed to the circuit court, which upheld BLNR's decisions. He then took his case to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), claiming that the circuit court erred in denying him a CCH and in allowing the permit renewal without proper public input.
The ICA agreed that Ralston had a property interest in a clean and healthful environment, which warranted a CCH. However, the court expressed concerns that the appeal might be moot since the permit had expired. The ICA remanded the case to the circuit court to determine what relief Ralston could obtain. Ralston later requested attorney fees under the PAG doctrine, but the ICA denied this request, leading to the appeal to the Hawaii Supreme Court.
The Ruling
The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that Ralston had met the requirements of the PAG doctrine and was entitled to attorney fees from RTH. The court stated, "The PAG doctrine does not require the prevailing party to obtain further relief before recovering PAG attorney fees," reinforcing the notion that individuals can seek compensation for their efforts in public interest cases.
The court ordered a remand to the ICA to determine the reasonableness of Ralston's attorney fees, which he had calculated at $9,139.17, including general excise tax. The court found that RTH was liable for these fees, stating that Ralston's advocacy benefited the public by ensuring procedural rights under Hawaii law.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for public interest litigation in Hawaii. It reinforces the ability of individuals to seek attorney fees when they challenge government decisions that affect public rights. The court's decision emphasizes that the PAG doctrine can apply to private parties, especially when they actively engage in litigation that impacts public interests.
The ruling also sets a precedent for future cases involving land use and public participation in government processes. By affirming Ralston's right to attorney fees, the court encourages citizens to hold government agencies accountable and to assert their rights in environmental and land use matters.
What's Next
The case will return to the ICA, which will determine the specific amount of attorney fees RTH owes Ralston for the work done on the appeal. There is no indication that RTH plans to appeal this ruling, but the outcome will likely influence how similar cases are handled in the future.