Butler v Massey University Albany

Case [2015] NZHC 2638


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
1990

BETWEEN

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].

Details
AGLC
Butler v Massey University Albany [2015] NZHC 2638
Case
[2015] NZHC 2638
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jesse Waiariki Temanava Butler initiated legal proceedings against Massey University Albany and the North Shore Police in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The plaintiff sought to challenge the decisions of the defendants related to an incident that occurred on the university's campus, leading to his arrest and subsequent legal actions against him. The case was primarily concerned with issues of alleged unlawful arrest, detention, and the use of excessive force by the police officers.

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.