Neville v Attorney-General

[2016] NZHC 2797

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-000156 [2016] NZHC 2797

BETWEEN

RICHARD STEPHEN NEVILLE

Plaintiff

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND

Defendant

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Counsel:	C B Hirschfeld and N Taylor for Plaintiff P Gunn for Defendant
Judgment:	22 November 2016

COSTS JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 November 2016 at 12.45 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the

High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:           Castle Brown, Auckland

Crown Law, Wellington

Copy to:            N Taylor, Auckland

C B Hirschfeld, Auckland

NEVILLE v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2016] NZHC 2797 [22 November 2016]

[1]      The Registrar has referred this file to me.   The outstanding issue is costs. Counsel  filed  memoranda  in  relation  to  costs  in  November  last  year.     The memoranda were unfortunately not placed on the file and neither the file nor the memoranda were referred to me until now.

[2]      The failure in the Registry is unacceptable.  I understand an apology has been sent to counsel from the Registry.

[3]      Returning to the issue of costs, counsel for the successful defendant seeks costs on a 2B basis.  The costs sought amount to $18,595.61 including disbursements of $4,099.61.

[4]      Mr Taylor for the plaintiff submits the case was novel and on an important issue.  Costs should lie where they fall. Alternatively, counsel submits a reduction in the quantum of costs by a half is appropriate, given that the plaintiff acceded to the Court’s  view that  the strike out  should be prosecuted by way of an  alternative application by way of summary judgment.

[5]      The defendant succeeded.  Costs should follow the event in the usual way. While the plaintiff sought to raise a claim under s 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the effect of the judgment is that the Court has determined that argument could not succeed as a matter of law.

[6]      However, a considerable part of the judgment was directed at the issue of whether, on the facts, the defendant’s summary judgment application could succeed. That aspect was determined against the defendant.  While the defendant succeeded on the summary judgment application he did so on an issue of law, the same issue of law identified in the strike-out application.

[7]      In the circumstances I accept it is reasonable to reduce the costs otherwise payable by a third. The reduction does not apply, however, to the disbursements.

[8]      The plaintiff is to pay the defendant costs in the sum of $9,565.00 together

with disbursements of $4,099.61, in total $13,664.61.

Venning J