27 Aug 2021
The proceeding did not concern a matter of public interest because the applicable law was well settled; the applicant's pro bono representation did not justify denying costs; therefore the Attorney-General was entitled to costs of $14,447.22.
4 Dec 2020
The Court granted the respondent legal aid costs despite the public interest nature of the application, exercising discretion under r 14.7(e) to award costs but reduce them by 25% to reflect the public interest in Corrections bringing the application and the reasonable conduct of Corrections; the Court directed itemisation of claimed costs per Schedule 3, preliminarily allowed the original High Court costs figure, declined to order costs for the Court of Appeal proceeding (no jurisdiction identified), and gave preliminary indications on reductions to expert fees and specific deductions for th…
5 Oct 2017
Although the proceeding raised genuine public interest concerns and was not unjustified, the plaintiff failed on the substantive claims because the evidence was historical and insufficient and statutory interpretation did not support the plaintiff's narrow construction; accordingly the plaintiff must contribute to defendants' costs but the contribution is reduced to reflect public interest, Crown status and common representation (25% of scale costs with other adjustments), and specific amounts are ordered.
16 Feb 2017
The Court refused costs for all parties under r14.7(e) because the proceedings involved a matter of genuine public interest and opposing parties acted reasonably, ordered the Public Trustee's costs and disbursements be paid from the Burnett Mount Cook Station Charitable Trust as an innocent substituted applicant, and (by addendum) recognized and gave effect to the prior court minute of 11 July 2016 by directing that Michael Askin is indemnified by the Trust for reasonable actual lawyer/client costs and disbursements properly incurred in carrying out his court-appointed duties, with leave rese…
10 Oct 2016
The court exercised discretion under r14.7(e) to reduce costs: the declaratory claim on the meaning of "practicable" was properly brought in the public interest and NZALPA acted reasonably, but the judicial review component was not public interest and remained liable for costs; accordingly each respondent awarded half their 2B costs claims and the expert witness disbursement for the second respondent was disallowed as it related to the public-interest component.
9 Oct 2012
The Court accepted that AfE represented a public interest and that its conduct did not disentitle it to public interest protection; accordingly no costs were ordered against AfE in respect of the Council. However, fairness required that Wellington Badminton, as a successful party representing a different public interest, be awarded scale costs of $4,512 from AfE.