NGATI APA & ORS V A-G & ORS CA CA173/01

NGATI APA & ORS V A-G & ORS CA CA173/01 5 December 2005IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA173/01BETWEEN NGATI APA, NGATI KOATA, NGATI KUIA, NGATI RARUA, NGATI TAMA, NGATI TOA AND RANGITANE Appellants AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND OTHERS Respondents Hearing: 5 December 2005 Court: Anderson P, Glazebrook and Hammond JJ Counsel: A S Butler and M Stephens for Appellants T J Warburton for Crown Judgment: 5 December 2005JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 1 We remit the costs issue to the High Court. 2 The Judges of this Court reconstitute themselves as Judges of the High Court. 3 We direct that the bill of costs in dispute in this proceeding be referred to the Wellington District Law Society for revision under s 146 of the Legal Practitioners Act 1982. 4 We give leave under s 151(d) of the Legal Practitioners Act 1982 for this revision, insofar as more than one year has elapsed since the date of revision of the bill.5 The costs of the revision itself are to be in the discretion of the Wellington District Law Society. 6 We reserve costs on this application. REASONS(Given by Hammond J)Introduction[1] In the course of this proceeding, on 5 February 2000 Doogue J made an order in the High Court for the legal costs of Muriwhenua to be payable under s 99A of the Judicature Act 1908. [2] The order was in these terms:There shall be an Order under section 99A of the Judicature Act 1908 that: 1. In the High Court hearing for case AP 152/00 the costs of the applicants will be paid out of public funds to the extent that it is necessary for the applicant's solicitors to advise Mr W M Wilson QC of the applicant's position in respect of the 90 Mile Beach decision, and to confer from time to time as necessary with Mr Wilson; and 2. In respect of any proceedings in the Court of Appeal, the applicant's reasonable costs of one Counsel to be paid out of public funds; and 3. These Orders are made on the basis that the applicant is anv‡r ‰rr ‚‡urih†v†‚shP qr ‚s‡urH ‚ v6ƒƒryyh‡8‚ˆ ‡[3] The appeal to this Court has now been determined (see Attorney-General v Ngati Apa [2003] 3 NZLR 643). [4] Counsel for Muriwhenua submitted bills of costs. A sum of $88,570.69 is presently in dispute, it having been suggested by the Department for Courts that that sum may not be reasonable.[5] The parties have today sought a determination as to the vehicle by which that costs issue is to be determined. [6] We heard counsel this morning, and we are grateful for their submissions. [7] In the result, on this particular application: 1. We remit the costs issue to the High Court. 2. The Judges of this Court reconstitute themselves as Judges of the High Court; 3. We direct that the bill of costs and dispute be referred to the Wellington District Law Society for revision under s 146 of the Legal Practitioners Act 1982. 4. We give leave under s 151(d) of the Legal Practitioners Act 1982 for this revision, insofar as more than one year has elapsed since the date of revision of the bill; 5. The costs of the revision itself are to be in the discretion of the Wellington District Law Society. [8] We reserve costs on this application.Solicitors: Russell McVeagh, Wellington for Appellants Crown Law Office, Wellington