POLICE V TSAI HC AK CIV 2010-404-006707
Because the respondent did not oppose the costs application and had unreasonably rejected a reasonable settlement offer that would have avoided litigation, an uplift from the 2B scale calculation to a total costs award of $10,000 was justified.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-7da79024_13c2_495d_bf4f_597a2c6a2398.pdf
- Parties
- Applicant: Commissioner of Police; Respondent: Kuo Liang (Leon) Tsai
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 30 October 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Forfeiture Proceeding / Costs Judgment
- Outcome
- Respondent ordered to pay costs to the applicant
- Legal Topics
- Forfeiture Orders, Costs and Indemnity, Settlement Offers and Uplift
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
Kuo Liang (Leon) Tsai
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Forfeiture Proceeding / Costs Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether costs should be awarded to the applicant
- 2 Whether an uplift on scale costs is justified because the respondent rejected a reasonable settlement offer
Ratio Decidendi
Because the respondent did not oppose the costs application and had unreasonably rejected a reasonable settlement offer that would have avoided litigation, an uplift from the 2B scale calculation to a total costs award of $10,000 was justified.
Court Disposition
Respondent ordered to pay costs to the applicant
Orders
- Respondent to pay costs to the applicant in the sum of $10,000
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
POLICE V TSAI HC AK CIV 2010-404-006707 [30 October 2012]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYCIV 2010-404-006707[2012] NZHC 2843BETWEEN COMMISSIONER OF POLICEApplicantAND KUO LIANG (LEON) TSAIRespondentAppearances: On the papersJudgment: 30 October 2012COSTS JUDGMENT OF GILBERT JThis judgment was delivered by me on 30 October 2012 at 10.00 amPursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:Counsel: M Harborow, Auckland: mark.harborow@meredithconnell.co.nzV Withy, Auckland: vanessa@22lorne.co.nz[1] In a judgment delivered on 31 August 2012, I made an asset forfeiture order in respect of $60,040 in cash. I directed that any application for costs should be made by memorandum within 14 days of the judgment with any response to be filed and served within 14 days thereafter. The Commissioner filed a memorandum on 7 September 2012 seeking costs. The respondent has not filed any memorandum inresponse. The Commissioner's application for costs is therefore not opposed.[2] The Commissioner has calculated that costs on a 2B basis for the application for forfeiture orders amounts to $8,358. The Commissioner seeks an uplift on scale costs to $10,000 because the respondent failed to accept a settlement proposal in October 2011, before the application for forfeiture orders was filed on 24 January 2012. The Commissioner offered to settle the matter on the basis that $8,000 would be returned to the respondent. This was a reasonable offer. Had it been accepted, the Commissioner would have been saved all of the costs of pursuing the forfeiture application. An increased costs award is appropriate having regard to the respondent's rejection of this offer without reasonable justification. The upliftsought by the Commissioner is reasonable.[3] Accordingly, I order that the respondent is to pay costs to the applicant on the application in the sum of $10,000.________________________M A Gilbert J