P v F [2014] NZHC 811
Because the plaintiff was not an aggrieved person under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act and his underlying Human Rights Review Tribunal proceedings could not have succeeded, the defendant was entitled to costs on the 2B scale; only the unjustified second counsel charge ($497.50) was disallowed, and no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] NZHC 811
- Parties
- Plaintiff: P; Defendant: F
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 16 April 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Professional Negligence (legal Malpractice) / Costs Judgment Following Judgment Dismissing Claim
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to defendant on the 2B scale with a specific reduction for unjustified second counsel
- Legal Topics
- 2 B Scale Costs, Aggrieved Person Under Health and Disability Commissioner Act, Costs Assessment, Second Counsel Deduction, Public Interest, Impecuniosity
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
P
Plaintiff
F
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence (legal Malpractice) / Costs Judgment Following Judgment Dismissing Claim
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff was an aggrieved person under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act
- 2 Whether the plaintiff's intended proceedings before the Human Rights Review Tribunal could succeed
- 3 Whether the defendant was entitled to costs on the 2B scale
Ratio Decidendi
Because the plaintiff was not an aggrieved person under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act and his underlying Human Rights Review Tribunal proceedings could not have succeeded, the defendant was entitled to costs on the 2B scale; only the unjustified second counsel charge ($497.50) was disallowed, and no further reductions were warranted for the conceded issue, public interest or alleged impecuniosity without evidence.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to defendant on the 2B scale with a specific reduction for unjustified second counsel
Orders
- Defendant's costs claim on 2B scale approved except for deduction of $497.50 for second counsel
- Costs awarded to defendant in the sum of $19,589.83 NZD
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
P v F [2014] NZHC 811 [16 April 2014]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYCIV 2013-485-680[2014] NZHC 811BETWEEN PPlaintiffAND FDefendantHearing: On papersCounsel: H J P Wilson and A M Hall for PlaintiffA C Challis and H K Harkess for DefendantJudgment: 16 April 2014COSTS JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J[1] In these proceedings I had to decide whether the plaintiff was an aggrieved person under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act arising from the birth of his child. I concluded that he was not and that as a result proceedings which he intended to bring before the Human Rights Review Tribunal could not have succeeded. As a result in these proceedings, where he sued his lawyer for failing to file an appeal within time, he could not have succeeded.[2] The defendant now seeks 2B costs. The amount is $20,087.33 including costs. There is no challenge to the assessment of 2B as a proper basis for scale costs.[3] The plaintiff raises the following factors which he says justifies a reduced payment:(a) this was not a case for second counsel and the defendant's claim should be reduced by $497.50;(b) the defendant accepted two days before the hearing that the second issue which was to be determined by the Court could be agreed in favour of the plaintiff;(c) the matters in dispute were of genuine public interest and that this decision has implications beyond the immediate parties;(d) finally the plaintiff is unemployed and has limited income and some reduction in costs to reflect that in the costs order is appropriate.[4] I agree that second counsel was not justified and the costs claim should be reduced by $497.50.[5] I accept the defendant's point that it has already made deductions from the costs claim with respect to the answer to the second question to be posed to the Court. No further allowance is required.[6] I agree that there could be no justification for a reduction in costs because of the potential public interest in the result. Both parties were, as the defendant points out, private individuals.[7] Finally, without further adequate information as to the plaintiff's financial situation, I do not consider it would be appropriate for me to take that into account.[8] I, therefore, approve the defendant's claim for costs save for the reduction of $497.50 for a second counsel._______________________________Ronald Young JSolicitors:Kensington Swan, WellingtonMcElroys, Auckland