COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v ROSS [2022] NZHC 2011
Costs were awarded to the Commissioner in the fixed sum claimed because the Schedule 3 allocations for Items 37 and 38 were appropriate in the circumstances, the Commissioner limited the claim for Item 38 to 0.3 days, the total sought was less than the fees actually charged, and the respondents did not oppose making...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] NZHC 2011
- Parties
- Applicant: Commissioner of Police; Second Respondent: Connie Elizabeth Ross (aka Smith); Third Respondent: Richard William Ross; First Interested Party: Bank of New Zealand
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 15 August 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under the Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act 2009 (civil Forfeiture) / Costs Decision (judgment on the Papers)
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to the Commissioner against the second and third respondents (jointly and severally).
- Legal Topics
- Civil Forfeiture Orders, Costs Assessment, Forfeiture Exclusion Application, High Court Rules Schedule 3 Items 37 and 38
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Commissioner of Police
Applicant
Connie Elizabeth Ross (aka Smith)
Second Respondent
Richard William Ross
Third Respondent
Bank of New Zealand
First Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act 2009 (civil Forfeiture) / Costs Decision (judgment on the Papers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether costs should be awarded to the Commissioner following judgment for civil forfeiture
- 2 Appropriate quantum and banding under Schedule 3, High Court Rules (Items 37 and 38)
- 3 Whether the claim for Item 38 was excessive given the limited affidavit material
Ratio Decidendi
Costs were awarded to the Commissioner in the fixed sum claimed because the Schedule 3 allocations for Items 37 and 38 were appropriate in the circumstances, the Commissioner limited the claim for Item 38 to 0.3 days, the total sought was less than the fees actually charged, and the respondents did not oppose making a costs order.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to the Commissioner against the second and third respondents (jointly and severally).
Orders
- Second and third respondents (jointly and severally) to pay to the applicant costs of the proceeding fixed in the sum of $16,610.50
- Second and third respondents (jointly and severally) to pay to the applicant disbursements fixed in the sum of $358
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v ROSS [2022] NZHC 2011 [15 August 2022]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDCHRISTCHURCH REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAŌTAUTAHI ROHECIV-2018-409-688[2022] NZHC 2011IN THE MATTER of an appeal under the Criminal Proceeds(Recovery) Act 2009BETWEEN COMMISSIONER OF POLICEApplicantAND CONNIE ELIZABETH ROSS (aka SMITH)Second RespondentAND RICHARD WILLIAM ROSSThird RespondentAND BANK OF NEW ZEALANDFirst Interested PartySubmissions filed: 9 August 2022 and 11 August 2022Counsel: C C White for ApplicantP J Kaye for Second and Third RespondentsJudgment: 15 August 2022(Determined on the papers)JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J[Costs]This judgment was delivered by me on 15 August 2022 at 11.30 am pursuant to Rule 11.5of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:[1] On the application of the Commissioner of Police for civil forfeiture orders,the Court gave judgment for the Commissioner against the second and thirdrespondents.1 The Court dismissed the third respondent's application to have hisproperty excluded from being realised.2[2] The Commissioner seeks costs against the second and third respondents mainlyon a 2B basis ($16,610.50 together with a disbursements of $358).[3] Mr White provided a table of costs calculations, making claims for appropriateitems.[4] Mr Kaye, for the respondents, responsibly did not oppose the making of anorder as such but queried whether the calculation for two items was too high.[5] Of the two items (37 and 38 in terms of Schedule 3, High Court Rules) the firstwas calculated on the basis Band B applies. That means, in the case of Item 37 (filingthe application and supporting affidavits), an allocation of two days. Having regardto the nature of this case, that allocation was clearly appropriate.[6] The claim under Item 38 arose because the Commissioner needed to fileaffidavits in opposition to Mr Ross's cross-application. Item 38 allows on a Band Abasis one day for the filing both of the notice of opposition and the supportingaffidavits. The Commissioner filed some but not lengthy affidavit evidence inopposition. Responsibly, Mr White has not claimed, under Item 38, the one dayallowance provided for in Schedule 3 for Band A, instead limiting the claim to 0.3days.[7] Mr White has confirmed that the total costs order sought is less than the feescharged to the Commissioner. From my own knowledge of the case, and in particularthe extent of evidence, the costs order sought is clearly reasonable.1 Commissioner of Police v Ross [2022] NZHC 1757.2 At [52].Order[8] I order the second and third respondents (jointly and severally) to pay to theapplicant the costs of the proceeding fixed in the sum of $16,610.50 together withdisbursements fixed in the sum of $358.Osborne JSolicitors:Crown Solicitor, ChristchurchJennifer Connell, Newmarket, AucklandCounsel: P J Kaye, Barrister, Auckland