GILMOUR v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZHC 2165 [7 September 2017]

GILMOUR v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZHC 2165 [7 September 2017]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYCIV 2015-485-171[2017] NZHC 2165BETWEEN STANLEY ALLEN GILMOURPlaintiffAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentHearing: On PapersCounsel: W G C Templeton for PlaintiffD Perkins for RespondentJudgment: 7 September 2017JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J[1] On 22 June 2016 I dismissed Mr Gilmour's application for review andawarded costs to the respondents. The proceedings had previously been classified as 2B for costs purposes by an Associate Judge. I saw no reason to depart from that classification. But I directed that memoranda should be filed if agreement as to quantum could not be reached.[2] The respondents took no steps to pursue the issue of costs pending Mr Gilmour's appeal to the Court of Appeal. That appeal was dismissed on 14 June 2017.1 Mr Gilmour's application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed earlier this week.21 Gilmour v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZCA 250.2 Gilmour v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 133.[3] The respondent has quantified its 2B costs in accordance with the High Court Rules. Mr Gilmour disputes the quantum of the costs claimed, not because the relevant steps were not taken by the respondent but because he says a lesser amount should, for various reasons, be payable in relation to some of those steps. There has been an exchange of memoranda.[4] As the respondent says, however, the whole point of the costs regime under the rules is predictability and expedition. The Court should not often be troubled by arguments about costs. None of these objects is achieved if the parties are permitted to take nice points about whether or not the time allocated by the rules for taking a particular step should be adjusted.[5] The short point is that once the skill and experience level appropriate to the particular proceeding has been determined (as it has here) the relevant band determines what is regarded as a reasonable amount of time for each step. It is rarethat costs calculated according to scale will equate to or exceed a party's actual costsand r 14.2(f) prevents recovery of more than the costs actually incurred.[6] In my view, none of the matters raised on Mr Gilmour's behalf warrants departing from a costs award determined in accordance with the rules. I therefore make an order that the costs and disbursements payable by Mr Gilmour are as set outin the Schedule to the respondent's memorandum dated 2 August 2017, namely $24,665.10._________________________Rebecca Ellis J