MC v Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki - Ministry for Children

[2024] NZHC 1906

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 437A OF THE ORANGA TAMARIKI ACT 1989, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B, 11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE

https://

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-2123

[2024] NZHC 1906

IN THE MATTER OF

An Appeal

UNDER

Section 341 of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989

BETWEEN

MC

Appellant

AND

THE CHIEF-EXECUTIVE OF ORANGA TAMARIKI – MINISTRY FOR

CHILDREN

Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers at Auckland
Judgment:	11 July 2024

JUDGMENT [NO.2] OF POWELL J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 July 2024 at 4.00 pm.

Pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

…………………..

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

MC v THE CHIEF-EXECUTIVE OF ORANGA TAMARIKI – MINISTRY FOR CHILDREN [2024] NZHC 1906 [11 July 2024]

[1]                 On 24 May 2024, I dismissed the appellant’s appeal against a Family Court decision.1

[2]                 In dismissing the appeal, I gave leave for the respondent, the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki, to seek costs against MC and I set a timetable for the filing of submissions. The Chief Executive has applied for costs calculated on a 2B basis in the sum of $14,340. MC has not filed any submissions in response.

[3]                 As Ms Jackson has noted in her supporting memorandum on behalf of the Chief Executive, while there is a discretion to award costs, there is “a strong implication that a Court is to apply the regime in the absence of some reason to the contrary”2 and she submits costs should follow on the dismissal of the appeal.

[4]                 In this case the Court had previously categorised the proceeding as 2B for the purposes of costs and it is clear that MC’s appeal had no merit for the reasons set out in my substantive decision. Furthermore, in the absence of any response by MC, including details of her financial position, there is no basis to conclude that an award of costs is not appropriate or should be otherwise discounted.

[5]I therefore order that MC is to pay costs to the Chief Executive in the sum of

$14,340 as sought.

[6]                 For the same reasons as set out in the principal judgment, this judgment is to be redacted consistently with the principal judgment prior to publication.

Powell J

1      MC v Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki – Ministry for Children [2024] NZHC 1322.

2      Monaco Golf Club Inc v Shoye Venture Ltd [2012] NZSC 109, [2013] 1 NZLR 305 at [7].