NEVILLE v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2016] NZHC 2797

NEVILLE v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2016] NZHC 2797 [22 November 2016]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYCIV-2014-404-000156[2016] NZHC 2797BETWEEN RICHARD STEPHEN NEVILLEPlaintiffAND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEWZEALANDDefendantHearing: (On the papers)Counsel: C B Hirschfeld and N Taylor for PlaintiffP Gunn for DefendantJudgment: 22 November 2016COSTS JUDGMENT OF VENNING JThis judgment was delivered by me on 22 November 2016 at 12.45 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarDateSolicitors: Castle Brown, AucklandCrown Law, WellingtonCopy to: N Taylor, AucklandC B Hirschfeld, Auckland[1] The Registrar has referred this file to me. The outstanding issue is costs. Counsel filed memoranda in relation to costs in November last year. The memoranda were unfortunately not placed on the file and neither the file nor the memoranda were referred to me until now.[2] The failure in the Registry is unacceptable. I understand an apology has been sent to counsel from the Registry.[3] Returning to the issue of costs, counsel for the successful defendant seeks costs on a 2B basis. The costs sought amount to $18,595.61 including disbursements of $4,099.61.[4] Mr Taylor for the plaintiff submits the case was novel and on an important issue. Costs should lie where they fall. Alternatively, counsel submits a reduction in the quantum of costs by a half is appropriate, given that the plaintiff acceded to theCourt's view that the strike out should be prosecuted by way of an alternativeapplication by way of summary judgment.[5] The defendant succeeded. Costs should follow the event in the usual way. While the plaintiff sought to raise a claim under s 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the effect of the judgment is that the Court has determined that argument could not succeed as a matter of law.[6] However, a considerable part of the judgment was directed at the issue of whether, on the facts, the defendant's summary judgment application could succeed.That aspect was determined against the defendant. While the defendant succeeded on the summary judgment application he did so on an issue of law, the same issue of law identified in the strike-out application.[7] In the circumstances I accept it is reasonable to reduce the costs otherwise payable by a third. The reduction does not apply, however, to the disbursements.[8] The plaintiff is to pay the defendant costs in the sum of $9,565.00 together with disbursements of $4,099.61, in total $13,664.61.__________________________ Venning J