MCGUIRE v THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE [2018] NZCA 167
The applicant's memorandum provided no proper basis to depart from the costs order agreed by counsel and recorded in the Court's judgment; the memorandum (even if treated as a recall application) was unmeritorious and the Court declined to recall or alter the costs order, leaving the band A costs and usual...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] NZCA 167
- Parties
- Applicant: Jeremy James McGuire; Respondent: The Secretary for Justice; Intervener: New Zealand Law Society
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 25 May 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Decision on Costs and Recall Application (on the Papers)
- Outcome
- Application for recall declined; previous costs order upheld
- Legal Topics
- Costs Awards, Recall of Judgment, Late Filing/indulgence, Intervention
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jeremy James McGuire
Applicant
The Secretary for Justice
Respondent
New Zealand Law Society
Intervener
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Costs and Recall Application (on the Papers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the usual costs rules are displaced by public interest and the presence of a full panel and intervener
- 2 Whether the respondent's indulgence to proceed with an out‑of‑time cross‑appeal affects the costs order
- 3 Whether the applicant's memorandum constitutes a meritorious application to recall the judgment
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant's memorandum provided no proper basis to depart from the costs order agreed by counsel and recorded in the Court's judgment; the memorandum (even if treated as a recall application) was unmeritorious and the Court declined to recall or alter the costs order, leaving the band A costs and usual disbursements intact.
Court Disposition
Application for recall declined; previous costs order upheld
Orders
- Application for recall declined
- Applicant to pay respondent costs on the appeal and on the cross‑appeal calculated for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
MCGUIRE v THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE [2018] NZCA 167 [25 May 2018]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA118/2017[2018] NZCA 167BETWEEN JEREMY JAMES MCGUIREApplicantAND THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICERespondentCourt: French, Miller, Cooper, Winkelmann and Clifford JJCounsel: Applicant in personG L Melvin and M J McKillop for RespondentP N Collins for New Zealand Law Society as IntervenerJudgment:(On the papers)25 May 2018 at 11.30 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for recall is declined.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Cooper J)[1] In the Court's judgment of 9 March 2018 there was an order that the applicantpay the respondent costs on the appeal, and costs on the cross-appeal, calculated for astandard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements.1[2] In a memorandum dated 23 March 2018 Mr McGuire takes issue withthe award of costs, on two bases. First, he says that the appeal involved the public1 McGuire v The Secretary for Justice [2018] NZCA 37 at [78].interest, and a full panel was convened to hear it, the New Zealand Law Society beingasked to appear as an intervener. He submits in the circumstances that the usual costsrules were thereby "displaced". The second issue advanced is that the cross-appealwas filed and served out of time and the Secretary for Justice was granted anindulgence to enable the cross-appeal to proceed.[3] Counsel for the respondent, by memorandum dated 5 April 2018, challengesboth of Mr McGuire's propositions.[4] In accordance with the Court's normal practice, we invited submissions onwhat costs orders (if any) should be made on disposal of the appeal, at the end ofthe oral argument. It was then agreed by both counsel that costs should follow theevent and that the costs should be calculated for a standard appeal on a band A basis.[5] Counsel for the respondent suggests that Mr McGuire's present memorandumeffectively amounts to a recall application. It is not so expressed. But if that is whatit is intended to be, it is clearly unmeritorious. There is no proper basis upon whichwe could now purport to make some different order as to costs than the one that wasmade in the judgment.[6] Assuming in Mr McGuire's favour that the memorandum is an application forrecall, it is declined.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent