THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION & ORS v MCCARTNEY & ANOR [2017] NZHC 1093
The court exercised its discretion to defer assessment and payment of costs under r 14.8(1), finding there were special reasons to justify delay (the defendant's status as a victim and related hardship) and that the appropriate time to assess the relevance of those circumstances is after the substantive hearing;...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] NZHC 1093
- Parties
- First Plaintiff: The Minister of Education; Second Plaintiff: The Secretary of Education; Third Plaintiff: The Board of Trustees of Parkvale Primary School; First Defendant: Tania May McCartney; Second Defendant: Craig Robert McCartney
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 24 May 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil (costs Application) / Interlocutory (costs Reserved)
- Outcome
- Costs reserved to be assessed after the substantive hearing; deferral justified under r 14.8(1).
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Costs, Costs Discretion Under High Court Rules, Rule 14.7(g), Rule 14.8(1), Reservation and Deferral of Costs
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Minister of Education
First Plaintiff
The Secretary of Education
Second Plaintiff
The Board of Trustees of Parkvale Primary School
Third Plaintiff
Tania May McCartney
First Defendant
Craig Robert McCartney
Second Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil (costs Application) / Interlocutory (costs Reserved)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether costs should be awarded against the second defendant on a 2B basis
- 2 Whether rule 14.7(g) permits refusal or reduction of costs on grounds advanced by the defendant
- 3 Whether rule 14.8(1) permits deferral of payment of costs pending determination of the substantive hearing
Ratio Decidendi
The court exercised its discretion to defer assessment and payment of costs under r 14.8(1), finding there were special reasons to justify delay (the defendant's status as a victim and related hardship) and that the appropriate time to assess the relevance of those circumstances is after the substantive hearing; costs were therefore reserved.
Court Disposition
Costs reserved to be assessed after the substantive hearing; deferral justified under r 14.8(1).
Orders
- Costs reserved
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION & ORS v MCCARTNEY & ANOR [2017] NZHC 1093 [24 May 2017]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDNAPIER REGISTRYCIV-2016-441-101[2017] NZHC 1093BETWEEN THE MINISTER OF EDUCATIONFirst PlaintiffTHE SECRETARY OF EDUCATIONSecond PlaintiffTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OFPARKVALE PRIMARY SCHOOLThird PlaintiffAND TANIA MAY MCCARTNEYFirst DefendantCRAIG ROBERT MCCARTNEYSecond DefendantOn the papers:Counsel: S-J Telford for PlaintiffsJ McDowell for DefendantsJudgment: 24 May 2017JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J (COSTS)[1] The plaintiffs seek costs on a 2B basis of $5,686.50 plus $110 disbursements against the second defendant, Mr McCartney. Mr McCartney does not dispute the quantum. However, he seeks that the Court either refuses costs pursuant to r 14.7(g) or defers costs pursuant to r 14.8(1). This is on the basis that, like Parkvale School, he too is the victim of his ex-wife's dishonesty and is left with the burden of havingto fund debts she incurred, while also caring for their two children.[2] The Court has discretion under r 14.7(g) to refuse to award costs or reducethe costs otherwise payable if "some other reason exists which justifies the court refusing costs or reducing costs". I have not been referred to any case where thisrule has been relied on in a situation similar to Mr McCartney's, but I think it premature to discount that possibility at this interlocutory stage.[3] Rule 14.8 provides that "costs on an opposed interlocutory application, unless there are special reasons to the contrary" must be fixed when the application isdetermined, and become payable when fixed. In my view, there are special reasons justifying delay. Mr McCartney is, as I have said, also a victim in this situation. I consider that the best time to assess the relevance of that fact to the issue of costs will be after the substantive hearing and the decision on the merits.[4] Costs are reserved accordingly.Williams JSolicitors:Morgan Coakle, Auckland for PlaintiffsWellesley Chambers, Napier for Defendants