TAYLOR & ORS v DAVIS & ORDERS [2016] NZHC 2390

TAYLOR & ORS v DAVIS & ORDERS [2016] NZHC 2390

Section 232 recognises the existence of a petition prior to payment of security and s232(3) bars further proceedings but does not render the petition a nullity for all purposes; the Court therefore retains jurisdiction under s250 and its general discretion to award costs beyond the statutory security amount; applying that discretion, a modest costs award was appropriate and the petitioners were ordered jointly and severally to pay apportioned costs and disbursements totaling NZD 1,936.25.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 2390
Parties
Petitioner: Arthur William Taylor; Petitioner: Lloydnathan Currie; Petitioner: Thomas Edmonds; Petitioner: Edward Rollo; Petitioner: Miriama Elisabeth Williams; First Respondent: Kelvin Davis; Second Respondent: The Electoral Commission; Third Respondent: The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections; Fourth Respondent: The Attorney-General of New Zealand
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
10 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Electoral Petition / Costs Judgment
Outcome
Petition confirmed at an end for failure to pay statutory security; costs awarded to fourth respondent in the exercise of the Court's discretion.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Costs, Jurisdiction, Statutory Interpretation, Bill of Rights Challenges
Electoral Law Civil Procedure Public Law Administrative Law Security for Costs Costs Jurisdiction Statutory Interpretation +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arthur William Taylor

Petitioner

Lloydnathan Currie

Petitioner

Thomas Edmonds

Petitioner

Edward Rollo

Petitioner

Miriama Elisabeth Williams

Petitioner

Kelvin Davis

First Respondent

The Electoral Commission

Second Respondent

The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

Third Respondent

The Attorney-General of New Zealand

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Electoral Petition / Costs Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to provide security under s232 of the Electoral Act 1993 rendered the petition a nullity or deprived the Court of jurisdiction to make costs orders
  2. 2 Whether the Court may award costs beyond the amount of the statutory security
  3. 3 Whether an award of costs would unreasonably limit rights (equal access to justice, BORA s9) or have a chilling effect on prisoners' litigation

Ratio Decidendi

Section 232 recognises the existence of a petition prior to payment of security and s232(3) bars further proceedings but does not render the petition a nullity for all purposes; the Court therefore retains jurisdiction under s250 and its general discretion to award costs beyond the statutory security amount; applying that discretion, a modest costs award was appropriate and the petitioners were ordered jointly and severally to pay apportioned costs and disbursements totaling NZD 1,936.25.

Court Disposition

Petition confirmed at an end for failure to pay statutory security; costs awarded to fourth respondent in the exercise of the Court's discretion.

Orders

  • Petitioners jointly and severally to pay the fourth respondent (Attorney-General) NZD 1,800.95 for costs and NZD 135.30 for disbursements, total NZD 1,936.25
  • Proceeding at an end for failure to give security under s232 of the Electoral Act 1993