IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CIV-2014-404-000345 [2015] NZHC 2638
UNDER the Judicature Act 1908 IN THE MATTER
of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
1990BETWEEN
JESSE WAIARIKI TEMANAVA BUTLER
Plaintiff
AND
MASSEY UNIVERSITY ALBANY First Defendant
NORTH SHORE POLICE Second Defendant
Hearing: On the papers Judgment:
27 October 2015
JUDGMENT OF ASHER J (Costs)
This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 27 October 2015 at 4 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Solicitors:
Crown Law, Wellington.
Copy to: Plaintiff
BUTLER v MASSEY UNIVERSITY ALBANY [2015] NZHC 2638 [27 October 2015]
[1] On 22 September 2015 I issued a judgment dismissing the claim of the second defendant on its merits. I reserved the question of costs.1
[2] The second defendant now seeks scale costs. It has filed submissions. Mr Butler has not filed any submissions in response in the time available. The general principle is that a successful party is entitled to costs.2
[3] There is no reason to depart from this general principle. I found that the
claim was not made out by a “very wide margin”.3
[4] I have a memorandum as to costs filed by the second defendant. Costs and disbursements total $11,101.24. These are calculated on a category 1 basis and all steps, but the pre-trial conference, have been claimed under band A. No costs have been claimed for the second defendant’s stay application, which was not formally determined.
[5] I am satisfied that the costs sought are reasonable.
[6] I order that the plaintiff is to pay the second defendant’s costs and
disbursement as set out in the schedule attached to the submission of 6 October
2015.
……………………………..
Asher J
1 Butler v Massey University Albany [2015] NZHC 2287.
2 High Court Rules, r 14.2(a).
3 Butler v Massey University Albany, above n 1, at [25].
- AGLC
- Butler v Massey University Albany [2015] NZHC 2638
- Case
- [2015] NZHC 2638
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the police officers acted within the bounds of their legal authority and whether the university's policies and procedures were followed correctly. The central legal issues included the evaluation of the police officers' actions in the context of their duty to enforce the law and the university's role in managing student conduct. Additionally, the court needed to assess if the plaintiff's rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 were violated during the incident.
The court, in its judgment, found that the plaintiff's claims did not meet the required standard of proof, and hence, the claim was dismissed. The court held that the police officers acted within their legal authority and that the university adhered to its policies and procedures. The court emphasized that the plaintiff's allegations were not substantiated to a very wide margin. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the defendants and ordered the plaintiff to pay the second defendant's costs and disbursements as detailed in the schedule attached to the submission of 6 October 2015.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.