FOX v FOX [2023] NZHC 355

FOX v FOX [2023] NZHC 355

Court declined to make a costs order. The applicant was not an "aided person" for s45 purposes and the court could not treat her as such; however, in the exercise of its discretion the court refused costs because the applicant was self-represented despite substantial efforts to obtain counsel, the respondent was legally aided and not directly out of pocket, and the recoverable amount was modest; accordingly costs were to lie where they fall.

Citation
[2023] NZHC 355
Parties
Applicant: Ms Fox; Respondent: Mr Fox
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
28 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Family Court Interim Parenting Order / Costs Decision Following Strike Out for Abuse of Process
Outcome
No order for costs; costs lie where they fall
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Abuse of Process, Eligibility for Legal Aid, Self Represented Litigant
Civil Procedure Family Law Legal Aid Costs Costs Orders Abuse of Process Eligibility for Legal Aid Self Represented Litigant

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Fox

Applicant

Mr Fox

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Family Court Interim Parenting Order / Costs Decision Following Strike Out for Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded against the unsuccessful applicant
  2. 2 Whether the applicant qualifies as an "aided person" under the Legal Services Act 2011 s45(2)
  3. 3 How the court should exercise its discretion on costs where the applicant was self-represented and sought but did not obtain legal aid

Ratio Decidendi

Court declined to make a costs order. The applicant was not an "aided person" for s45 purposes and the court could not treat her as such; however, in the exercise of its discretion the court refused costs because the applicant was self-represented despite substantial efforts to obtain counsel, the respondent was legally aided and not directly out of pocket, and the recoverable amount was modest; accordingly costs were to lie where they fall.

Court Disposition

No order for costs; costs lie where they fall

Orders

  • No order for costs; costs lie where they fall