Bailey v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Because appellant's present solicitors were engaged late and required review of the complete file, and the substantive issue was resolved without a hearing, the Court exercised its discretion to award a reasonable contribution to costs in the sum of $2,500.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1999] NZACC 109
- Parties
- Appellant: Roy David Bailey; Respondent: Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 4 May 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 / Costs Determination Following Settlement on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal settled by agreement; costs awarded to appellant in the sum of $2,500.
- Legal Topics
- Costs Award, Legal Aid, Settlement, Appeal From Review Officer
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Roy David Bailey
Appellant
Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 / Costs Determination Following Settlement on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether costs should be awarded to the appellant
- 2 Appropriate quantum of costs given late engagement of counsel and settlement without hearing
- 3 Whether full reimbursement of costs is appropriate or only a contribution
Ratio Decidendi
Because appellant's present solicitors were engaged late and required review of the complete file, and the substantive issue was resolved without a hearing, the Court exercised its discretion to award a reasonable contribution to costs in the sum of $2,500.
Court Disposition
Appeal settled by agreement; costs awarded to appellant in the sum of $2,500.
Orders
- Respondent to pay appellant costs of $2,500.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON Decision No. 109 /99 UNDER The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to section 91 of the Act BETWEEN ROY DAVID BAILEY of Auckland Appellant (Appeal No. DCA 89/98) AND ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent JUDGMENT OF JUDGE A W MIDDLETON The appellant lodged an appeal against the decision of the Review Officer in relation to the appellant's claim for current and backdated weekly compensation. The appellant appears to have been represented by a number of different counsel until September 1998 when he consulted his present solicitors. The solicitors notified the Registrar on 17 February 1999 that the appellant had been granted legal aid in respect of his appeal to this Court. In the result, the parties have settled the issues between them and the only issue for which the Court is requested to make a decision is the question of an award of costs to the appellant. An examination of the file indicates that the appellant considered an appropriate contribution in this case was $3,500 but nowhere on the file is there any indication of a counter-offer having been made by the respondent. 2 The appellant has submitted that because of the numerous changes in counsel it was necessary for his present solicitors to peruse the whole file to understand the background which led to this position in order to be able to advise the appellant. In addition, the appellant's solicitor's filed for submissions in anticipation of the appeal coming before the Court. The respondent submits that the question of costs is an entirely discretionary manner for the Court but that it is normal that it should not be a full reimbursement of costs incurred but merely a reasonable contribution towards them. I agree with the appellant that in this case his present solicitors were handicapped by having been brought into the proceedings at a late stage which necessarily involved the complete understanding of the file. I consider that having regard to the nature of the issue which has been resolved without the necessity of a hearing an appropriate contribution towards the costs of the appellant is the sum of $2,500. There will be an order for costs in that figure. DATED at WELLINGTON this 4th day of May 1999 A W Middleton District Court Judge dca89-98.doc (nr)