PHILIP RUSSELL KING V TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED And Anor CA CA221/02
The Court exercised its discretion and held that exceptional circumstances existed to justify a personal costs order against a legally aided appellant but that the amount should be reduced because the appellant had partial success on a negligence issue; accordingly the appellant was ordered to pay $2,500 to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-58a79fe1_6864_4580_bfaf_9fc9d1f8ede6.pdf
- Parties
- Appellant: Philip Russell King; First Respondent: TV3 Network Services Limited; Second Respondent: Top Shelf Productions Limited
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 15 December 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Costs Decision
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to first respondent against appellant despite legal aid, reduced due to partial success
- Legal Topics
- Costs Against Legally Aided Litigant, Exceptional Circumstances, Partial Success Adjustment of Costs, Costs Assessment
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Philip Russell King
Appellant
TV3 Network Services Limited
First Respondent
Top Shelf Productions Limited
Second Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Costs Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a costs order can be made personally against a legally aided appellant
- 2 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify personal liability for costs
- 3 Whether the appellant's partial success on negligence grounds requires tempering of the costs award
Ratio Decidendi
The Court exercised its discretion and held that exceptional circumstances existed to justify a personal costs order against a legally aided appellant but that the amount should be reduced because the appellant had partial success on a negligence issue; accordingly the appellant was ordered to pay $2,500 to the first respondent.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to first respondent against appellant despite legal aid, reduced due to partial success
Orders
- Appellant to pay the first respondent for its costs of and incidental to the appeal the sum of $2,500 all in.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
PHILIP RUSSELL KING V TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED And Anor CA CA221/02 15 December 2003IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA221/02BETWEEN PHILIP RUSSELL KING Appellant AND TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED First Respondent AND TOP SHELF PRODUCTIONS LIMITED Second Respondent Judgment: 15 December 2003JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (AS TO COSTS) DELIVERED BY TIPPING J[1] The first respondent has applied for costs against the unsuccessful appellant despite his having been legally aided. We have considered the submissions filed on each side. We are of the view that there are exceptional circumstances warranting an order against the appellant personally. We do, however, consider that the amount of such order should be tempered because a significant part of the hearing was focused on the negligence issue upon which Mr King had succeeded in the High Court. He was entitled to seek to uphold the ruling in his favour made in that Court. [2] For these reasons we order that the appellant pay the first respondent for its costs of and incidental to the appeal the sum of $2,500 all in.Solicitors: Thomas Dewar Sziranyi Druce, Lower Hutt for Appellant Grove Darlow & Partners, Auckland for First Respondent