GOH v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION (of Wellington) [Costs] [2022] NZHC 324

GOH v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION (of Wellington) [Costs] [2022] NZHC 324 [1 March 2022]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV 2021-404-001326[2022] NZHC 324UNDER The Accident Compensation Act 2001IN THE MATTER OF an application for special leave to appeal pursuant to s 162 of the ActBETWEEN IRENE GOHAppellantAND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION (of Wellington)RespondentHearing: On the papersAppearances: No submission from the Appellant S M Bisley and L W D Kibblewhite for the RespondentJudgment: 1 March 2022JUDGMENT OF VAN BOHEMEN J[Costs]This judgment was delivered by me on 1 March 2022 at 2.00pmPursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors:Buddle Findlay, AucklandCopy to:The AppellantIntroduction[1] In my judgment dated 9 December 2021, 1 I gave the reasons for the decision I made at the end of the hearing on 23 November 2021 dismissing Ms Goh's application for special leave to appeal a decision of Judge AA Sinclair in the District Court on 4 September 2020,2 after Judge K D Kelly in the District Court had refused leave to appeal in the first instance.3[2] In my decision, I held that Ms Goh's application was a further attempt to review a decision taken by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) in 2005. That decision concerned Ms Goh's entitlement to backdated weekly compensation under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (ACC Act) and ACC's obligation under the ACC Act to deduct from the compensation paid to Ms Goh a proportion of the benefits Ms Goh had received from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) in respect of the same period. I noted that the 2005 decision had been comprehensively considered and conclusively determined in earlier decisions of the District Court, High Court and Court of Appeal.4[3] With respect to Ms Goh's application for special leave to appeal, I also held that: 5(a) there was no issue of principle at stake;(b) there was no significant sum that hinges on the decision;(c) there was no prospect of success; and(d) the application was an abuse of process.[4] I awarded costs against Ms Goh on a 2B basis after stating:1 Goh v Accident Compensation Corporation [2021] NZHC 3372.2 Goh v Accident Compensation Corporation [2020] NZACC 119.3 Goh v Accident Compensation Corporation [2021] NZACC 90.4 Goh v Accident Compensation Corporation, above n 1, at [3].5 At [66].[69] While it is not usual to award costs against a litigant in person who has been in receipt of a benefit, I consider an award of costs is appropriate in this case. Ms Goh has pursued a meritless appeal in the face of strong directions from both Judge Sinclair and Judge Kelly that it was time to stop this litigation.[5] I said that if the ACC and Ms Goh were unable to agree costs, the ACC and Ms Goh were to file memoranda in accordance with a timetable I set out.[6] In accordance with those directions, counsel for the ACC filed a memorandum dated 4 February 2022. In the memorandum, counsel advised that Ms Goh had not engaged with them in their efforts to agree costs. The ACC sought costs of $10,277 calculated on a 2B basis in accordance with a schedule annexed to the memorandum. The ACC also filed a draft order for the costs set out in the schedule.[7] Ms Goh did not file any memorandum by 18 February 2022 as directed in my judgment or subsequently.[8] I am satisfied that the costs sought by the ACC are appropriate.[9] I order Ms Goh to pay the ACC costs of $10,277 and direct the Registrar to make and seal the order for costs prepared by the ACC.______________________G J van Bohemen J