LOWES v MEDIAWORKS TV LIMITED [2017] NZHC 1729
The Court exercised its discretion to decline a general costs award given the circumstances and the respondent's conduct, but awarded the respondent reasonable and necessary disbursements of $606.79 for in-house counsel travel, to be paid from the security for costs held by the Court, with the balance refunded to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] NZHC 1729
- Parties
- Appellant: Archibald Norman Lowes; Respondent: MediaWorks TV Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 25 July 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Section 18 Broadcasting Act 1989 From Broadcasting Standards Authority Decision / Costs Decision Following Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal previously dismissed; no general costs awarded; disbursements of $606.79 awarded to respondent and to be paid from security for costs with balance refunded to appellant.
- Legal Topics
- Costs, Disbursements, Broadcasting Standards, Judicial Discretion
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Archibald Norman Lowes
Appellant
MediaWorks TV Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 18 Broadcasting Act 1989 From Broadcasting Standards Authority Decision / Costs Decision Following Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court should award costs against the appellant
- 2 Whether respondent may recover in-house counsel travel as a disbursement
- 3 How to allocate funds held as security for costs
Ratio Decidendi
The Court exercised its discretion to decline a general costs award given the circumstances and the respondent's conduct, but awarded the respondent reasonable and necessary disbursements of $606.79 for in-house counsel travel, to be paid from the security for costs held by the Court, with the balance refunded to the appellant.
Court Disposition
Appeal previously dismissed; no general costs awarded; disbursements of $606.79 awarded to respondent and to be paid from security for costs with balance refunded to appellant.
Orders
- Respondent MediaWorks TV Limited awarded disbursements of $606.79 to be paid from security for costs held by the Court.
- Balance of security for costs ($1,115 minus $606.79 = $508.21) to be refunded to appellant Archibald Norman Lowes.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
LOWES v MEDIAWORKS TV LIMITED [2017] NZHC 1729 [25 July 2017]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYCIV-2017-485-7[2017] NZHC 1729UNDER section 18 of the Broadcasting Act 1989IN THE MATTER of an appeal from a decision of theBroadcasting Standards Authority(No 2016-072 dated 2 December 2016)BETWEEN ARCHIBALD NORMAN LOWESAppellantAND MEDIAWORKS TV LIMITEDRespondentOn the papersCounsel: A N Lowes in PersonT E G Turton for RespondentJudgment: 25 July 2017JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J[1] By my decision dated 29 May 2017, I dismissed Mr Lowes' appeal against adecision of the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) regarding inaccuracies in a MediaWorks broadcast.1[2] In my conclusion, I made some observations as to what might be consideredthe utility of Mr Lowes' identification of inaccuracies in the particular broadcast.Given those observations, I suggested MediaWorks might well consider costs should lie where they fall.[3] MediaWorks has now filed a memorandum in respect of costs. Rather reluctantly, it accepts my suggestion, although it repeats its view that the appeal1 Lowes v MediaWorks TV Limited [2017] NZHC 1130.should have been avoided given MediaWorks' Standards Committee acknowledgedthe inaccuracy in the broadcast in relation to Mr Lowes' initial complaint on 26August 2016.[4] MediaWorks also notes it has tried to limit Mr Lowes' potential cost exposurethroughout the proceeding and did not instruct counsel to appear on its behalf. It does, however, seek as a disbursement the cost of in-house counsel's travel fromAuckland to Wellington and return. These costs total $606.79.[5] Mr Lowes has filed a memorandum in response, submitting MediaWorksshould bear "a share of the costs" and repeating his criticism of the inaccuracies ofthe broadcast. He also contends Mr Turton, in-house counsel at MediaWorks, wentto MediaWorks' Wellington office that day "to update their employees, so he was on company business that day".[6] Costs are at the discretion of the Court. I acknowledge MediaWorks'reservations as to the way in which Mr Lowes has conducted himself in these proceedings but nevertheless consider the decision not to pursue costs is an appropriate one in the circumstances. That is not to say this is the approach which will always be taken by the Court if inaccuracies are acknowledged and rectified at an early date.[7] I do, however, consider it appropriate to award MediaWorks the costs of its disbursements. It was successful in the appeal and I accept it minimised its costs by using in-house counsel to appear. It should not, however, be out of pocket and it is awarded the disbursements of $606.79. They are reasonable and reasonably necessary for the proceedings.[8] I note the Court holds $1,115 by way of security for costs. These funds are to be paid to the parties in accordance with this decision, with the result $606.79 is to be paid to MediaWorks and the balance refunded to Mr Lowes.Thomas J