FORREST v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2014] NZHC 2703
Despite the defendant's success, no costs order was made because the plaintiff was a serving prisoner who brought a non‑trivial BORA claim and conducted proceedings properly; imposing a substantial costs order would create an unrealistic financial burden that would not assist rehabilitation, therefore the court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] NZHC 2703
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Brendon Douglas Forrest; Defendant: The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 31 October 2014
- Procedural Posture
- New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Claim / Costs Application Following Interlocutory Judgment
- Outcome
- Claim for costs declined; no order for costs against the plaintiff.
- Legal Topics
- New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Prisoner Clothing Policy, Costs Orders Against Prisoners, Rehabilitation Considerations
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Brendon Douglas Forrest
Plaintiff
The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Defendant
Procedural Posture
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Claim / Costs Application Following Interlocutory Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a costs order should be made against a serving prisoner
- 2 Appropriateness of awarding costs where a BORA claim was struck out
- 3 Whether imposing costs would impede rehabilitation and re‑integration
Ratio Decidendi
Despite the defendant's success, no costs order was made because the plaintiff was a serving prisoner who brought a non‑trivial BORA claim and conducted proceedings properly; imposing a substantial costs order would create an unrealistic financial burden that would not assist rehabilitation, therefore the court exercised its discretion to decline costs.
Court Disposition
Claim for costs declined; no order for costs against the plaintiff.
Orders
- The defendant's claim for costs in the sum of $6,775.09 is refused
- No order as to costs against the plaintiff
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
FORREST v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2014] NZHC 2703 [31 October 2014]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYCIV 2014-485-202[2014] NZHC 2703BETWEEN BRENDON DOUGLAS FORRESTPlaintiffAND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSDefendantOn the papersJudgment: 31 October 2014JUDGMENT OF MALLON J (Costs)[1] I refer to my judgment dated 29 July 2014.1 The judgment was silent on the issue of costs. Costs were sought in the interlocutory application but not mentioned in the submissions. The defendant has since filed a memorandum seeking costs of $6,775.09 (calculated on a 2B basis). The plaintiff does not oppose costs in principle. He queries the appropriateness of claiming for some of the steps thatmake up the defendant's calculation. He proposes that the Court order the lesser sumof $2,550 which he would pay off once he is released from prison.[2] Although the defendant succeeded and the general principle is that the unsuccessful party pays costs,2 I consider it is not appropriate to make any order in this case. I acknowledge that costs orders can be made against serving prisoners. However costs orders, like reparation orders, may impose unrealistic burdens on them which do nothing to assist their rehabilitation when they are released. Consequently reparation orders are frequently not made if a person is to be sentenced to imprisonment.1 Forrest v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2014] NZHC 1780.2 High Court Rules, rr 14.2 and 14.8;[3] In this case Mr Forrest was bringing a claim under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It concerned the clothing prisoners are required to wear for prisoner visits. Although the claim was struck out because it could not succeed, it cannot be said that it concerned a trifling matter. Certainly there was nothing aboutMr Forrest's conduct that indicated he was anything other than genuinely concernedabout the issue. He conducted his claim in a proper manner: his pleadings were carefully framed, he was responsibly cooperative in relation to the interlocutory steps, and his written and oral submissions were focussed on the issues.3[4] In these circumstances, I consider that it is not appropriate to saddle him with the burden of a substantial costs order, which he will need to pay off over time when he is released, when his efforts should be focussed on rehabilitation and integration.4The claim for costs is therefore declined.Mallon J3 High Court Rules, r 14.7(e). The same is true of his submissions on costs.4 High Court Rules, r 14.7(g).