TE WHANAU O RANGIWHAKAAHU HAPU CHARITABLE TRUST AND ANOR V DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ORS HC WHA CIV 2008-488-548

TE WHANAU O RANGIWHAKAAHU HAPU CHARITABLE TRUST AND ANOR V DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ORS HC WHA CIV 2008-488-548

The court resolved the anomaly by analogy under r 14.5(1)(b), treating the filing of a notice of opposition to an application for review as equivalent to filing a notice of opposition to an interlocutory application and awarded 0.5 days; the memorandum was held to arise from the review application and 0.4 days under item 4.10 was awarded.

Citation
openlaw-a32fefd1_d0b9_475b_9ecd_2e8723929571.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: TE WHANAU O RANGIWHAKAAHU HAPU CHARITABLE TRUST; Second Plaintiff: FRIENDS OF MATAPOURI INC; First Defendant: DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION; Second Defendant: CHIEF EXECUTIVE LAND INFORMATION NEW ZEALAND; Third Defendant: ATTORNEY GENERAL; Fourth Defendants: V M MONK & ORS
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
22 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Review / Costs Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs awarded costs in respect of the disputed items; specific day allowances fixed.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Costs Schedule, Case Management Conference, Allowances Under Court Scale
Civil Procedure Costs Judicial Review Interlocutory Applications Security for Costs Costs Schedule Case Management Conference Allowances Under Court Scale

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TE WHANAU O RANGIWHAKAAHU HAPU CHARITABLE TRUST

First Plaintiff

FRIENDS OF MATAPOURI INC

Second Plaintiff

DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

First Defendant

CHIEF EXECUTIVE LAND INFORMATION NEW ZEALAND

Second Defendant

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Third Defendant

V M MONK & ORS

Fourth Defendants

Procedural Posture

Application for Review / Costs Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs entitled to costs for filing a notice of opposition to the application for review
  2. 2 Proper interpretatation and application of items in the Third Schedule to the High Court Rules (items 4.13, 12, 4.12, 4.10, 13)
  3. 3 Whether memorandum filed for case management conference is compensable and appropriate quantum

Ratio Decidendi

The court resolved the anomaly by analogy under r 14.5(1)(b), treating the filing of a notice of opposition to an application for review as equivalent to filing a notice of opposition to an interlocutory application and awarded 0.5 days; the memorandum was held to arise from the review application and 0.4 days under item 4.10 was awarded.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs awarded costs in respect of the disputed items; specific day allowances fixed.

Orders

  • Plaintiff entitled to an allowance of 0.5 days in respect of the filing of the notice of opposition to the application for review.
  • Plaintiffs entitled to an allowance of 0.4 days in respect of the filing of the memorandum for the case management conference.