FIELDING v POLICE [2021] NZHC 4
The Court refused to stay or postpone quantification pending appeal, applied schedule 2B of the High Court Rules to calculate scale costs, allowed reasonable disbursements for the common bundle, and awarded the respondent costs and disbursements totalling $22,710.59.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] NZHC 4
- Parties
- Applicant: Alisohn Joan Fielding; Respondent: New Zealand Police
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 11 January 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 / Post Judgment Costs Application (quantification of Costs After Dismissal)
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to the respondent following dismissal of the judicial review application; quantification ordered and not stayed.
- Legal Topics
- Costs, Disbursements, High Court Rules Schedule 2 B, Stay of Costs Pending Appeal, Common Bundle Costs
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alisohn Joan Fielding
Applicant
New Zealand Police
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 / Post Judgment Costs Application (quantification of Costs After Dismissal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether costs should be awarded to the respondent
- 2 Whether quantification of costs should be stayed or postponed pending appeal
- 3 Appropriate scale and calculation of costs under High Court Rules schedule 2B
Ratio Decidendi
The Court refused to stay or postpone quantification pending appeal, applied schedule 2B of the High Court Rules to calculate scale costs, allowed reasonable disbursements for the common bundle, and awarded the respondent costs and disbursements totalling $22,710.59.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to the respondent following dismissal of the judicial review application; quantification ordered and not stayed.
Orders
- Costs and disbursements awarded to the respondent in the sum of $22,710.59.
- Quantification of costs is not stayed or postponed pending appeal; enforcement is a matter for the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
FIELDING v POLICE [2021] NZHC 4 [11 January 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHECIV-2019-485-000611[2021] NZHC 4UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016IN THE MATTER OF review of decision made by variouspolice officersBETWEEN ALISOHN JOAN FIELDINGApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentHearing: [On the Papers]Appearances: A J Fielding in PersonS B McCusker for RespondentJudgment: 11 January 2021JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS J[re Costs]This judgment was delivered by me on 11 January 2021 at 12.00 pmpursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors: Luke Cunningham Clere, WellingtonCopy To: A J Fielding, Paraparaumu[1] In my judgment dated 16 October 2020, I dismissed Ms Fielding's applicationfor judicial review.1 The New Zealand Police seek an order for scale costs anddisbursements of $22,710.59.[2] Ms Fielding opposes the award of costs. She has filed three memoranda inopposition. In essence, she submits that the application for costs should be stayed orpostponed on the basis of her appeal to the Court of Appeal. Alleged errors with myjudgment and the arguments to be advanced on appeal are canvassed in the othermemoranda filed.[3] An appeal to the Court of Appeal does not provide a good reason for thequantification of costs to be delayed. Quantification allows both parties certainty asto the sums due and owing. Whether the costs judgment is enforced immediately is amatter for the New Zealand Police.[4] The calculation of costs according to schedule 2B of the High Court Rules2016 is appropriate in this case. The proceeding was of average complexity. There isalso some merit to the respondent's submission that there would be grounds to seekincreased costs for some of the steps taken in the proceeding. The claim forschedule 2B costs for all steps taken in the proceeding is reasonable in thosecircumstances.[5] The steps for which costs have been claimed are appropriate. Costs have notbeen claimed for all steps, and the costs for others have been properly calculated andclaimed.[6] The costs and disbursements associated with the preparation of a commonbundle of documents are also properly sought. Ms Fielding ultimately accepted therespondent's offer to file a common bundle of documents that complied with theHigh Court Rules for the purposes of the hearing. The costs of preparing that commonbundle are reasonably claimed.1 Fielding v Police [2020] NZHC 2728.[7] Accordingly, I award costs and disbursements to the respondent in the sum of$22,710.59.___________________Edwards J