WRIGHT v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZHC 1166

WRIGHT v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZHC 1166

The primary rule that lay litigants are not entitled to recover costs prevents the court from creating a special category of costs awards for self-represented litigants or from awarding a mathematical credit derived from scale costs; interlocutory successes should be recorded and may be taken into account by the judge fixing final costs rather than quantified as an immediate offset, and in the specific applications the appropriate outcome is no order as to costs for the defendants' security and review applications with certain interlocutory costs to lie where they fall and interlocutory successes to be acknowledged for final assessment.

Citation
[2020] NZHC 1166
Parties
Plaintiff: Nicholas David Wright; First Defendant: The Attorney-General, as representative of the New Zealand Police; Second Defendant: Auckland District Health Board
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
29 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review NZBORA Proceedings / Costs Determination Following Review of Security for Costs Applications
Outcome
No order as to costs in relation to either defendant's applications for security before Associate Judge Bell or their applications for review of that decision (including the preliminary hearing before Jagose J). Interlocutory successes are recorded and may be taken into account at final costs determination; certain...
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Costs Against Lay Litigants, Access to Courts, NZBORA, Interlocutory Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Administrative Law Constitutional Law Security for Costs Costs Against Lay Litigants Access to Courts NZBORA +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas David Wright

Plaintiff

The Attorney-General, as representative of the New Zealand Police

First Defendant

Auckland District Health Board

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review NZBORA Proceedings / Costs Determination Following Review of Security for Costs Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a self-represented lay litigant is entitled to costs for successfully opposing security for costs applications
  2. 2 Whether an interlocutory mathematical credit derived from scale costs can be awarded to a lay litigant
  3. 3 Whether earlier interlocutory costs orders should be stayed or varied

Ratio Decidendi

The primary rule that lay litigants are not entitled to recover costs prevents the court from creating a special category of costs awards for self-represented litigants or from awarding a mathematical credit derived from scale costs; interlocutory successes should be recorded and may be taken into account by the judge fixing final costs rather than quantified as an immediate offset, and in the specific applications the appropriate outcome is no order as to costs for the defendants' security and review applications with certain interlocutory costs to lie where they fall and interlocutory successes to be acknowledged for final assessment.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs in relation to either defendant's applications for security before Associate Judge Bell or their applications for review of that decision (including the preliminary hearing before Jagose J). Interlocutory successes are recorded and may be taken into account at final costs determination; certain...

Orders

  • No order as to costs for the defendants' security for costs applications or their applications for review
  • Costs of the partially successful application before Associate Judge Bell to lie where they fall