WRIGHT v ATTORNEY-GENERAL as representative of the NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2101

WRIGHT v ATTORNEY-GENERAL as representative of the NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2101

Costs on the two interlocutory applications were fixed and awarded to the defendants because the plaintiff failed on those applications, there was no special reason to defer or reduce costs despite BORA context, and a 50% uplift was warranted on the second application because it was duplicative and entirely without merit thereby unnecessarily increasing costs.

Citation
[2021] NZHC 2101
Parties
Plaintiff: Nicholas David Wright; First Defendant: Attorney-General as representative of the New Zealand Police; Second Defendant: Auckland District Health Board
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
12 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding Involving Interlocutory Applications and Substantive BORA Claims / Costs Judgment Following Dismissal of Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Both interlocutory applications dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay costs and disbursements to both defendants
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Applications, Costs on Interlocutory Applications, Deferment of Costs, Uplift for Meritless Steps, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Implications
Civil Procedure Costs Human Rights Administrative Law Interlocutory Applications Costs on Interlocutory Applications Deferment of Costs Uplift for Meritless Steps +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas David Wright

Plaintiff

Attorney-General as representative of the New Zealand Police

First Defendant

Auckland District Health Board

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceeding Involving Interlocutory Applications and Substantive BORA Claims / Costs Judgment Following Dismissal of Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs on interlocutory applications should be deferred until determination of the substantive trial
  2. 2 Whether costs should be reduced or refused because the proceedings allege breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
  3. 3 Whether an uplift should be ordered under High Court Rules for pursuing an unnecessary or meritless application

Ratio Decidendi

Costs on the two interlocutory applications were fixed and awarded to the defendants because the plaintiff failed on those applications, there was no special reason to defer or reduce costs despite BORA context, and a 50% uplift was warranted on the second application because it was duplicative and entirely without merit thereby unnecessarily increasing costs.

Court Disposition

Both interlocutory applications dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay costs and disbursements to both defendants

Orders

  • Plaintiff ordered to pay costs and disbursements totalling $14,082 to the First Defendant
  • Plaintiff ordered to pay costs and disbursements totalling $17,956 to the Second Defendant