LOWE v AUCKLAND FAMILY COURT [2017] NZHC 1303

LOWE v AUCKLAND FAMILY COURT [2017] NZHC 1303

The application was dismissed because the applicant did not demonstrate any special reason entitling the court to reverse, discharge or vary the interlocutory costs order under HCR r14.8(2) (no overlooked relevant evidence, no material change of circumstances, and the subsequent judicial review outcome did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] NZHC 1303
Parties
Applicant: LOWE; First Respondent: AUCKLAND FAMILY COURT; Second Respondent: WAY
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
14 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review and Interlocutory Application Concerning Costs / Application to Reverse, Discharge or Vary Interlocutory Costs Order Under High Court Rules R14.8(2) Following Earlier Interlocutory Costs Decision
Outcome
Application to reverse, discharge or vary costs order dismissed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Costs, Judicial Review, Natural Justice, Appointment of Lawyer for Child, High Court Rules R14.8 and R7.49
Civil Family Law Administrative Law Costs Law Interlocutory Costs Judicial Review Natural Justice Appointment of Lawyer for Child +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LOWE

Applicant

AUCKLAND FAMILY COURT

First Respondent

WAY

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review and Interlocutory Application Concerning Costs / Application to Reverse, Discharge or Vary Interlocutory Costs Order Under High Court Rules R14.8(2) Following Earlier Interlocutory Costs Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order on an opposed interlocutory application should be reversed, discharged or varied under HCR r14.8(2)
  2. 2 Whether late affidavit evidence of financial means justifies reopening the costs decision
  3. 3 Whether the subsequent judicial review decision affects the interlocutory costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicant did not demonstrate any special reason entitling the court to reverse, discharge or vary the interlocutory costs order under HCR r14.8(2) (no overlooked relevant evidence, no material change of circumstances, and the subsequent judicial review outcome did not undermine the appropriateness of costs ordered); the late affidavit was inexcusable and could and should have been filed earlier by counsel.

Court Disposition

Application to reverse, discharge or vary costs order dismissed

Orders

  • Application to reverse, discharge or vary the interlocutory costs order is declined; the costs order made on 6 April 2017 remains in force