MEENKEN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2015] NZHC 412
The presumption in r 15.23 that a discontinuing plaintiff must pay costs was not displaced by the applicant's apology; accordingly costs were awarded to the respondent on the category 1 band B basis sought.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] NZHC 412
- Parties
- Applicant: Diederik Marten Meenken; Respondent: Attorney-General
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 10 March 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Costs Application Following Discontinuance
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Discontinuance, Costs Awards, High Court Rule 15.23
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Diederik Marten Meenken
Applicant
Attorney-General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Application Following Discontinuance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a discontinuing plaintiff must pay costs
- 2 Whether the presumption in r 15.23 is displaced
- 3 Appropriate costs band to apply
Ratio Decidendi
The presumption in r 15.23 that a discontinuing plaintiff must pay costs was not displaced by the applicant's apology; accordingly costs were awarded to the respondent on the category 1 band B basis sought.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to the respondent
Orders
- Costs awarded to the respondent on a category 1 band B basis
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
MEENKEN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2015] NZHC 412 [10 March 2015]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYCIV-2014-485-11456[2015] NZHC 412BETWEEN DIEDERIK MARTEN MEENKENApplicantAND ATTORNEY-GENERALRespondentIn Chambers: On papersJudgment: 10 March 2015JUDGMENT OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS(Costs)[1] Mr Meenken has discontinued his proceeding, some two weeks ahead of the hearing of an application to strike it out. The respondent now seeks costs on a category 1 band B basis.[2] Mr Meenken apologises to the Court, and to the respondent, for filing "a poor application". He accepts it was "badly done". He says he is sorry, and asks that theCourt forgive his action in wasting its and the respondent's time.[3] Forgiveness will be facilitated here by the ordinary application of r 15.23. The presumption that a discontinuing plaintiff must pay costs has not been displaced.Result[4] Costs as sought.Stephen Kós JSolicitor: Crown Law, Wellington for RespondentAnd to: Applicant in person