SIEMER V CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE NEW ZEALAND SUPREME COURT HC AK CIV-2009-404-8435
The defendants, having succeeded in striking out the claims, are entitled to costs on a 2B basis plus disbursements in each proceeding; the defendants provided cost schedules so lack of a breakdown was not a valid obstacle and the existence of an appeal does not preclude a costs award.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-b174486e_ebfd_4ccd_a8b0_2bb337c5b329.pdf
- Parties
- Plaintiff: VINCENT ROSS SIEMER; First Defendant: CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE NEW ZEALAND SUPREME COURT; Second Defendant: ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND; Defendant: SOLICITOR-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND; First Defendant: GRAHAM LAURIE LANG; First Defendant: MARK LESLIE COOPER
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 31 October 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Proceedings (applications to Strike Out) / Costs Application Following Strike Out Orders, Post Judgment
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to the defendants on a 2B basis with disbursements in each proceeding.
- Legal Topics
- Strike Out, Costs Assessment, High Court Rules R14, 2 B Costs Scale
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Plaintiff
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE NEW ZEALAND SUPREME COURT
First Defendant
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND
Second Defendant
SOLICITOR-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND
Defendant
GRAHAM LAURIE LANG
First Defendant
MARK LESLIE COOPER
First Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings (applications to Strike Out) / Costs Application Following Strike Out Orders, Post Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether defendants are entitled to costs after successful strike-out applications
- 2 Appropriate scale for costs (2B) and entitlement to disbursements
- 3 Whether lack of a detailed costs breakdown from defendants defeats a costs order
Ratio Decidendi
The defendants, having succeeded in striking out the claims, are entitled to costs on a 2B basis plus disbursements in each proceeding; the defendants provided cost schedules so lack of a breakdown was not a valid obstacle and the existence of an appeal does not preclude a costs award.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to the defendants on a 2B basis with disbursements in each proceeding.
Orders
- Costs to the defendants in each proceeding on a 2B basis together with disbursements, as sought.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
SIEMER V CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE NEW ZEALAND SUPREME COURT HC AK CIV-2009-404-8435 31 October 2011IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYCIV-2009-404-8435BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMERPlaintiffAND CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE NEWZEALAND SUPREME COURTFirst DefendantAND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEWZEALANDSecond DefendantAppearances: Plaintiff in personP Gunn for the Defendants in CIV-2009-404-8435, CIV-2009-404-8438 and CIV-2010-404-0084A Powell for the Defendants in CIV-2010-404-7025 and CIV-2010-404-7026Judgment: 31 October 2011 at 4:30 PMJUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J (Costs)This judgment was delivered by me on 31 October 2011 at 4:30 p.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarParties / Solicitors: Mr V R Siemer, Gulf Harbour Mr P Gunn, Crown Law, Wellington Mr A Powell, Crown Law, WellingtonCont CIV-2009-404-8438BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER PlaintiffAND THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND DefendantCIV-2010-404-0084BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER PlaintiffAND THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND DefendantCIV-2010-404-7025BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER PlaintiffAND GRAHAM LAURIE LANG First DefendantAND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND Second DefendantCIV-2010-404-7025BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER PlaintiffAND MARK LESLIE COOPER First DefendantAND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND Second Defendant[1] The defendants seek costs on a 2B basis in respect of their successfulapplications to strike out the claims. Mr Siemer opposes the application.[2] Under High Court r 14.1(1) "all matters are at the discretion of the Court ifthey relate to costs". This is not an unfettered discretion. It is subject to principlesset out in the High Court Rules and the leading judgments on costs. The first statedprinciple, in r 14.2(a) is that "the party who fails with respect to a proceeding or aninterlocutory application should pay costs to the party who succeeds".[3] Mr Siemer advanced two main grounds for opposing the application. Thefirst is that he "has not received any break down of costs from the State defendant".Mr Siemer said that for that reason he is not able to address the issue "from aninformed position". This would not prevent a decision on the question of costs as amatter of principle. However, there are schedules attached to the defendants'memorandum setting out the details in respect of the costs items sought. There isnothing in this ground of opposition.[4] The second ground is that there was "a fundamental and fatal flaw in law" inmy substantive judgment and Mr Siemer has appealed. This is not a reason to decline costs.[5] There will be orders for costs in each of the proceedings, together withdisbursements, as sought.______________________________Woodhouse J