Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2011-404-8024 [2013] NZHC 2260

IN THE MATTER OF an application for Judicial Review under s 16 of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Panel Act
2004

BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Plaintiff

ANDJUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER
First Defendant

ANDHELEN DIANA WINKELMANN Second Defendant

Hearing: (On the papers) Counsel: F C Deliu for Plaintiff
P J Gunn for First Defendant

Judgment: 2 September 2013

COSTS JUDGMENT OF PETERS J

Solicitors: Crown Law, Wellington

Counsel: F C Deliu, Auckland

SIEMER v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER [2013] NZHC 2260 [2 September 2013]

[1] On 16 October 2012, I granted the First Defendant’s application to strike out the Plaintiff’s statement of claim and left it open to the parties to file submissions on costs if they wished.[1]

[1] Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner HC Auckland CIV-2011-404-8024, 16 October 2012. ([2012] NZHC 2710)

[2] Counsel for the First Defendant has sought costs on a 2B basis, together with disbursements. Counsel for the Plaintiff advises that he is without instructions but submits that the First Defendant has calculated its costs on the daily rate which came into effect on 14 June 2012, rather than the rate prevailing when I heard the proceedings, being 1 June 2012,

[3] I accept that submission. The First Defendant is to have costs on a 2B basis, calculated at the daily rate prevailing prior to 1 June 2012, together with disbursements. Any disputes which arise as to the precise calculation or items are to be determined by the Registrar.

..................................................................

M Peters J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, presided over the case of Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner, a judicial review application filed under section 16 of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Panel Act 2004. The plaintiff, Vincent Ross Siemer, sought review against the decisions of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, with Helen Diana Winkelmann as a second defendant. The plaintiff's application was dismissed by the court, and the Judicial Conduct Commissioner sought costs on a standard basis.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Judicial Conduct Commissioner was entitled to costs on a standard basis following the dismissal of the plaintiff's application. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate daily rate for calculating those costs, as the plaintiff argued that the rate in effect after the proceedings were heard should not apply.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the Judicial Conduct Commissioner was entitled to costs on a standard basis. The court accepted the plaintiff's argument that the daily rate used by the Commissioner should reflect the rate in effect on the date the proceedings were heard, rather than a subsequent rate. Consequently, the court ordered that the Commissioner's costs were to be calculated based on the daily rate prevailing before 1 June 2012, the date on which the proceedings were heard, along with any allowable disbursements. The court further directed that any disputes regarding the precise calculation or items of costs would be resolved by the Registrar.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established