HARRISON v AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2013] NZHC 1770

HARRISON v AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2013] NZHC 1770

The Court found the plaintiffs' statement of claim was prolix, scandalous, largely unintelligible and an abuse of process; indemnity costs were justified against the second, third and sixth defendants due to vexatious and improper conduct and hopeless claims; the appropriate classification for this matter was category 2 with band C time allocations for most steps and a 50% uplift for defendants (other than fifth) to reflect plaintiffs' unreasonable conduct; specific cost amounts were fixed accordingly.

Citation
[2013] NZHC 1770
Parties
First Plaintiff: P J Harrison; Second Plaintiff: A J Harrison; First Defendant: Auckland District Health Board; Second Defendant: Second Defendant; Third Defendant: Third Defendant; Fourth Defendant: Fourth Defendant; Fifth Defendant: Health and Disability Commissioner; Sixth Defendant: Coronial Services Unit
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
12 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Alleged Medical Negligence/wrongful Death and Related Claims / Post Strike Out Costs Determination (strike Out Entered 15 October 2012)
Outcome
Costs awarded to defendants following strike-out; indemnity costs awarded to second, third and sixth defendants; other defendants awarded increased scale costs
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Costs Assessment, Indemnity Costs, Abuse of Process, Vexatious Litigation, Suppression/suppression of Identity
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Administrative Law Coronial Law Strike Out Costs Assessment Indemnity Costs Abuse of Process +2 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P J Harrison

First Plaintiff

A J Harrison

Second Plaintiff

Auckland District Health Board

First Defendant

Second Defendant

Second Defendant

Third Defendant

Third Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Health and Disability Commissioner

Fifth Defendant

Coronial Services Unit

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Alleged Medical Negligence/wrongful Death and Related Claims / Post Strike Out Costs Determination (strike Out Entered 15 October 2012)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs are justified against the plaintiffs
  2. 2 Appropriate cost category and time banding under the High Court Rules
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs' conduct amounted to vexatious/frivolous litigation and abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the plaintiffs' statement of claim was prolix, scandalous, largely unintelligible and an abuse of process; indemnity costs were justified against the second, third and sixth defendants due to vexatious and improper conduct and hopeless claims; the appropriate classification for this matter was category 2 with band C time allocations for most steps and a 50% uplift for defendants (other than fifth) to reflect plaintiffs' unreasonable conduct; specific cost amounts were fixed accordingly.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to defendants following strike-out; indemnity costs awarded to second, third and sixth defendants; other defendants awarded increased scale costs

Orders

  • Plaintiffs to pay to first defendant: $23,880 together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar
  • Plaintiffs to pay to second and third defendants: $25,300 together with disbursements of $1,269.88