CLEMENTS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 2388
Costs were awarded to the respondent on a 2B basis because the Council was the successful party, costs normally follow the event, and the applicant did not act reasonably in the conduct of the proceedings (numerous meritless applications, failure to attend hearing, failure to file submissions), so the public...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] NZHC 2388
- Parties
- Applicant: Miriam Clements; Respondent: Auckland Council
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 11 September 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Proceedings / Costs Determination
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to respondent (Auckland Council) against applicant (Miriam Clements).
- Legal Topics
- Costs Assessment, 2 B Costs Scale, Strike Out for Want of Prosecution, Reasonableness of Conduct
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Miriam Clements
Applicant
Auckland Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings / Costs Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether costs should be awarded to the successful party
- 2 Whether the public interest nature of proceedings requires reduction or waiver of costs
- 3 Whether the applicant acted reasonably in the conduct of the proceedings such that costs should be reduced
Ratio Decidendi
Costs were awarded to the respondent on a 2B basis because the Council was the successful party, costs normally follow the event, and the applicant did not act reasonably in the conduct of the proceedings (numerous meritless applications, failure to attend hearing, failure to file submissions), so the public interest character of the case did not justify reducing or waiving costs.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to respondent (Auckland Council) against applicant (Miriam Clements).
Orders
- Award costs to Auckland Council on a 2B basis in the sum of $53,185.50.
- Order disbursements (filing fees) in the sum of $1,380.00.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CLEMENTS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 2388 [11 September 2018]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2017-404-002792[2018] NZHC 2388BETWEEN MIRIAM CLEMENTSApplicantAND AUCKLAND COUNCILRespondentHearing: On the papersJudgment: 11 September 2018JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J[COSTS]This judgment was delivered by Justice WylieOn 11 September 2018 at 2.00pmPursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:Solicitors/counsel:Meredith Connell, WellingtonCopy to:M Clements[1] I refer to my judgment of 15 August 2018.1 I awarded costs to the AucklandCouncil (the Council) on a 2B basis, together with its usual disbursements.2[2] The Council filed a memorandum seeking costs calculated on a 2B basis. Thetotal amount sought was $54,565.50 – inclusive of disbursements.[3] Ms Clements was given the opportunity to respond to the Council'sapplication. She filed a lengthy memorandum. Unfortunately, it did not engage withthe costs application. Rather, it took issue with the Court's refusal to adjourn thehearing, with Jagose J's dealings with the matter and with my own decision.Ms Clements advised that she filed a notice of appeal in respect of my decision.[4] The only matter of potential relevance was an assertion by Ms Clements thatFitzgerald J had ordered that the matter was one of public interest and that costs werewaived.[5] I have checked the file. On 28 March 2018, Fitzgerald J dismissed anapplication by the Council seeking security for costs.3 The Judge did accept that thematter was one of some public interest, but she did not order that costs would bewaived.4 Rather, she declined the Council's application that Ms Clements should paysecurity for costs.[6] Costs normally follow the event.5 In the present case, the Council is thesuccessful party. The High Court Rules do provide that costs can be reduced if theproceedings concerned a matter of public interest, but only if the party opposing costsacted reasonably in the conduct of the proceeding.6 Here, Ms Clements did not actreasonably. She filed a very large number of applications – most of little or no merit.She failed to turn up at the hearing. She failed to file submissions. The proceedingswere struck out for want of prosecution.1 Clements v Auckland Council [2018] NZHC 2084.2 At [33].3 Clements v Auckland Council [2018] NZHC 553.4 At [44].5 High Court Rules, r 14.2(1)(a).6 Rule 14.7(e)[7] I have checked the various steps which the Council says it has taken. Insofaras I can see, they are correct and the amounts claimed are in accordance with therelevant High Court Rules and costs schedules.[8] Accordingly, I make an order for costs in favour of the Council and againstMs Clements, in the sum of $53,185.50. I also make an order for disbursements –namely filing fees, in the sum of $1,380. It follows that the total award of costs anddisbursements is in the sum of $54,565.50.____________________________Wylie J