HILL v MĀORI TRUSTEE [2016] NZHC 1072

HILL v MĀORI TRUSTEE [2016] NZHC 1072 [23 May 2016]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDPALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRYCIV-2015-454-39[2016] NZHC 1072UNDER the District Courts Act 1947, ss 72(1), 75,76(1)(a), 76(1)(b)(i) and (ii), 76(1)(c), Billof Exchange Act 1908, s 10(2), HighCourt Rules 2005 r 7.55(1), District CourtRules 2009, Crimes Act 1961, JudicatureAct 1908, Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 14,27, 28, 29, Animal Welfare Act, MagnaCarta 1215, Human Rights Act 1993,Property Law Act 2007, Securities Act1978, Personal Properties Act 1999,Interpretation Act 1979 and not limited toothers supporting the intent of thisapplication by appellant in accord withlaw or by lawful amendmentIN THE MATTER OF judgment decision dated 23 February 2015by District Court Palmerston NorthCIV-2011-054-0533BETWEEN FREDERICK PIRIPI KINGI HILLAppellantAND MĀORI TRUSTEERespondentOn papersJudgment: 23 May 2016JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J(Costs)[1] In my judgment dismissing the appeal and application for judicial review brought by Mr Hill in this proceeding, I ruled that the Māori Trustee was entitled tocosts.11 Hill v Māori Trustee [2016] NZHC 364 at [79].[2] I invited memoranda, and although Mr Hill did not respond specifically on costs within the time limit specified, in dismissing a subsequent application by him for a stay of the effect of my judgment I indicated that I would grant him further timeto respond to the application on behalf of the Māori Trustee for increased costs.[3] A document purporting to do that was filed by Mr Hill on 15 May 2016. From the terms of Mr Hill's memorandum it is very difficult to discern any relevantgrounds for opposition to the costs sought. For instance, the first paragraph of his memorandum states:The appellant states that the Court has through neglect ruled that the estate it is purporting to charge against for costs incurred by New Zealand lawsociety member the Māori Trustee and agent Ms C Reuhman cannot be identified by registration or free and intelligent consent in the proceeding.[4] This is very clearly a proceeding in which the usual rule that costs shouldfollow the event is appropriately applied. The Māori Trustee has calculated the scalecosts on a 2B basis at $8,288. However, the memorandum filed on behalf of theMāori Trustee dated 24 April 2016 seeks increased costs on the basis that responding appropriately to Mr Hill's various initiatives in the proceeding required a more thanusual level of resources. For instance, there were six case management conferences and an additional three memoranda filed in respect of them.[5] Having reviewed the history of the proceedings, in light of the District Court judgment and my own, I am satisfied that materially more than a usual level of resources were appropriately required from the Māori Trustee to deal with steps that appear to have included diversionary and delaying tactics by Mr Hill. Ultimately, many of the points he sought to raise were completely untenable.[6] The Māori Trustee has sought an uplift of 50 per cent. I consider that is justified. I accordingly order costs in favour of the Māori Trustee in the sum of$12,432.Dobson JSolicitors:Māori Trustee, WellingtonCopy to:F P K Hill