Rasmussen v Disputes Tribunal at Pukekohe

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-404-910

[2017] NZHC 2998

UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

BETWEEN

PATRICIA RASMUSSEN AND KEVIN LANCE RASMUSSEN

Applicants

AND

THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL AT PUKEKOHE

First Respondent

KIM CRYNS AND HARRY CRYNS

Second Respondents

Hearing: (On the papers)

Counsel:

P J Broad for Applicants

Judgment:

5 December 2017

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J (COSTS)

Solicitors:

RASMUSSEN v THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL AT PUKEKOHE [2017] NZHC 2998 [5 December 2017]

Peter Broad (Auckland) for Applicants (Second Respondents in person)

[1]This Judgment determines costs in the substantive proceeding.

[2]In my Judgment, I said:1

[18] The Cryns’ counsel did not appear for the hearing because the Cryns decided the cost would be prohibitive. Nevertheless, they are entitled to costs. I fix these, tentatively, on a 2B basis. Unless I receive submissions opposing 2B costs by 5:00 pm on 30 November 2017, costs will crystallise on that basis.

[3] Counsel for the Rasmussens has filed submissions in relation to costs. He submits that costs be fixed at category 2 and that time allocation A is reasonable. He points out that the Cryns were not represented by counsel and, so far as he is aware, they were not advised by counsel.

[4] I note that the only document filed by the Cryns was filed by them in person, although it appears to have been drafted by a lawyer and it refers to the Cryns having taken legal advice.

[5] I accept Mr Broad’s submission that litigants in person are not entitled, except in exceptional cases, to recover litigation costs. They may recover disbursements.

[6] To the extent that the Cryns incurred legal expenses in this matter which are recoverable under the Rules, I award them costs on a category 2A basis. Otherwise, they may recover their relevant disbursements.

Brewer J

1 Rasmussen v The Disputes Tribunal at Pukekohe [2017] NZHC 2812.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an application for costs in a judicial review proceeding. Patricia Rasmussen and Kevin Lance Rasmussen applied to the High Court for judicial review of a decision made by the Disputes Tribunal at Pukekohe. The respondents, Kim Cryns and Harry Cryns, were not represented by counsel and appeared in person. The issue before the court was the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties. The Rasmussens argued that the Cryns should bear the costs of the proceedings, while the Cryns contended that they should only be liable for their own costs.

The court considered the submissions made by counsel for the Rasmussens and the fact that the Cryns appeared in person. The court acknowledged that litigants in person are not usually entitled to recover litigation costs, except in exceptional circumstances. The court also noted that the Cryns had incurred some legal expenses that were recoverable under the rules. Based on these considerations, the court awarded the Cryns costs on a category 2A basis to the extent that they had incurred recoverable legal expenses. Otherwise, the Cryns were only entitled to recover their relevant disbursements.

The court's reasoning was based on the principles of costs allocation in judicial review proceedings. The court recognised that the Cryns' decision not to be represented by counsel did not necessarily entitle them to recover litigation costs. However, the court also considered the fact that the Cryns had incurred some legal expenses and awarded them costs on a category 2A basis to the extent that those expenses were recoverable under the rules. This outcome balanced the interests of both parties and ensured that the Cryns were not unfairly burdened with excessive costs.

The final orders of the court were that the Cryns were to bear their own costs to the extent that they had incurred recoverable legal expenses, on a category 2A basis. Otherwise, they were only entitled to recover their relevant disbursements. The Rasmussens were not awarded costs against the Cryns. This outcome reflected the court's consideration of the principles of costs allocation and the specific circumstances of the case.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Counsel:	P J Broad for Applicants
Judgment:	5 December 2017