BRIGHT V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2008-404-8468

BRIGHT V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2008-404-8468 2 April 2009IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2008-404-8468BETWEEN PENELOPE MARY BRIGHT Appellant AND AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL Respondent Hearing: Matter determined on the papers Judgment: 2 April 2009 at 2:30 pmJUDGMENT OF ASHER J [COSTS]This judgment was delivered by me on 2 April 2009 at 2:30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules .. Registrar/Deputy Registrar .. DateP Bright, 86a School Road, Kingsland, Auckland Meredith Connell, PO Box 2213 Auckland[1] On 18 February 2009 I heard Ms Bright's application to dispense with security for costs. On 20 February 2009 I issued a judgment declining that application, and reserving costs. [2] The Auckland City Council now seeks costs. Scale costs would be $2,080.00 on a 2B basis. Given that awards of costs should not exceed the actual costs (r 14.2(f) of the High Court Rules) and awards of costs should normally be two- thirds of the daily rate considered reasonable (r 14.2(d) of the High Court Rules), the respondent seeks an order for costs of $1,000.00. Ms Bright has been served with the application but has not filed submissions. [3] Ms Bright failed in her application and in accordance with the general rule that a party who fails with respect to an interlocutory application should pay costs to the party who succeeds (r 14.2(a) of the High Court Rules), the respondent is entitled to costs. [4] However, the Court has a discretion under r 14.7(a) to reduce the costs otherwise payable if the step in the proceeding is such that the time required by the party claiming costs will be substantially less than the time allocated under Band A; and under r 14.7(g), if for some other reason the Court is justified in reducing the costs despite the principle that the determination of costs should be predictable and expeditious. It is also relevant to note that r 14.7(c) states that reduced costs may be appropriate where the issues at stake were of little significance. [5] Here the issue at stake was the payment of $800 for security for costs. While it might have been an important issue to both parties at the time, on an overview it is of little significance at least to the successful party, the Auckland City Council. Normally the matter would have been dealt with in the course of the appeals list. Thus in ordinary circumstances the hearing of the application would have involved only an extra amount of time at that list of up to half-an-hour. This is a relevant circumstance under r 14.7(g). The hearing had to be adjourned as there was not time available on the particular appeals list. Through no fault of its own, the Auckland City Council had to attend Court on a second occasion to argue the point. In thecircumstances I do not consider this warrants an award more than what would be appropriate if the matter was heard in the appeals list. I therefore am not prepared to order costs of $1,000.00.Result[6] The appellant is to pay costs of $300 to the respondent in relation to her unsuccessful application to dispense with security for costs. Asher J