A more serious allegation of assault against his brother, Gary Birchfield, was dropped 10 months ago.
The court heard yesterday that High Court proceedings around Birchfield's remaining shares in Birchfield Coal Mining (BCM) were continuing.
The former West Coast Regional Council chairman was trespassed from the company's Kaiata coal yard last year, days after he was alleged to have 'clipped' Gary Birchfield with his vehicle.
However, he was later cleared of that charge by Judge Quentin Hix due to the lack of evidence.
The controversial councillor was back before Judge Hix in the Greymouth District Court yesterday and given the opportunity to argue against media applications to photograph him in the dock.
Lawyer Andrew McCormick said media had file photos they could use and it was '‘completely unnecessary'’ to photograph him in court.
"This is simply an attempt to embarrass Mr Birchfield."
The interest was only due to Birchfield's profile in the community and in public office, Mr McCormick said.
''This is a minor charge in the grand scheme of things, stemming from a family dispute."
However, Judge Hix said it was because of Birchfield's public profile that he was granting the application, in the view of open justice.
Birchfield was initially granted interim name suppression when he was charged in June 2023 with assaulting his brother with a weapon - a motor vehicle - and trespassing on the Birchfield coal yard at Kaiata.
The assault charge followed accusations Birchfield had 'clipped' his brother on May 1, while the civil trespass charge alleged that he repeatedly returned to the yard over a fortnight later in defiance of a two-year trespass order.
On October 30, Judge Hix withdrew the assault charge, with police consent, but declined to dismiss the trespass charge.
Following media applications, Birchfield's name suppression was lifted by the High Court soon after.
Around the same time, Birchfield was embroiled in defending allegations levelled against him about his conduct at the regional council, being accused of leaking privileged information relating to the employment of previous chief executive Heather Mabin, followed by an alleged assault involving another councillor, Frank Dooley.
On August 8 last year Birchfield was formally censured by fellow councillors and ordered to apologise.
He remains on the council, but was stripped of voting rights on any sub-committees.
Birchfield said at the time he would continue to fight the civil trespass charge because his name had been on the title of the Kaiata coal yard for 45 years.
The charge hinged on whether the trespass notice had been validly issued by the company. Allan Birchfield maintained a 25% share in the business trust, while his brothers Evan and Gary held the other 25% and 50%, respectively.
An application is before the High Court for a forced sale of Allan Birchfield's share of the property, the court heard yesterday.
Birchfield had raised the prospect of wanting to subdivide the property to preserve his portion, his lawyer said. However, that was opposed by his brothers because the parties "could not co-exist in a workable manner".
"They think he should be effectively bought out," Mr McCormick said.
He argued the validity of the trespass was a question of whether or not the company had exclusive possession of the Kaiata coal yard.
So far, no evidence of that had been provided by police, he said.
"In a nutshell, police have to prove the company has exclusive possession of the whole site, and that being to the exclusion of the defendant."
Judge Hix said while Allan Birchfield was no longer a director of the company, he had been going to the property on a regular basis for decades.
''I get the impression that this is one of those cases where the parties have operated a business without any real thought being given to the clear boundaries between the legal entities involved."
There had never been a written lease or licence in place, he said.
Ultimately, Judge Hix ruled there was no case to answer and he dismissed the trespass charge.
Birchfield, who was supported by family in court, declined to comment outside of the courthouse, although one family member said it was "a good result'’.
