New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Self-represented litigant costs

Legal area

Court

6 Oct 2022

STOKES v THE ANGLICAN CHURCH PROPERTY TRUSTEES Costs [2022] NZHC 2580

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2580
Court

High Court

Although the applicant ultimately obtained an order sustaining the caveat and an easement, he cannot recover solicitors' fees as a lay litigant and pre-proceeding legal fees incurred in 2017 are not costs of the proceeding; only disbursements reasonably incurred in the proceeding are recoverable, so the filing fee of $540 is awarded to the applicant; the respondent is not entitled to costs.
22 Sept 2022

BOSWELL v KORVING [2022] NZHC 2469

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2469
Court

High Court

Disbursements were awarded only where they met r14.12: filing and scheduling fees, photocopying, courier and the doctor's consultation and affidavit preparation were specific to and reasonably necessary for the appeal and reasonable in amount (the doctor's affidavit was determinative). Disbursements that predated the appeal, related to substantive proceedings, concerned travel not ordinarily claimable, or were payments to non-lawyers (online services) were refused.
19 Oct 2021

K v K [2021] NZHC 2787

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2787
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal the costs order and the refusal to recall it was dismissed because the appellant failed to identify any arguable error of law or fact, mischaracterised the costs judgment, the proposed appeal lacked general or precedential importance and the interests of justice did not favor further delay or additional cost to the respondent; accordingly the costs judgment and the 2B costs award stand and recall was not available on the grounds advanced.
12 Dec 2017

MCGUIRE v SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE [2017] NZCA 583

Citation

[2017] NZCA 583
Court

Court of Appeal

Refund of filing and hearing scheduling fees declined because applicant did not satisfy reg 5(2)(b) requirement that the proceeding was unlikely to be commenced or continued unless fees were waived; extension of time to apply to dispense with security for costs granted due to injustice if barred by time limit; application for dispensation (and immediate refund) declined because it would inappropriately pre-empt the substantive five-judge panel's decision on costs and therefore the court must await that panel's judgment before ordering a refund of security.
15 Sept 2006

RUPE V ACC HC TAU CIV-2005-470-910

Citation

openlaw-354ef1ce_1fba_4cfd_8910_5625667e9a76.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the established principle that self-represented litigants cannot recover costs applies, there were no exceptional public interest circumstances warranting departure, and the appellant had effectively submitted to the District Court's jurisdiction by filing a statement of defence and electing to re-present jurisdictional arguments there; accordingly no point of law or fact of sufficient importance justified leave.

New Zealand Case Law

STOKES v THE ANGLICAN CHURCH PROPERTY TRUSTEES Costs [2022] NZHC 2580

BOSWELL v KORVING [2022] NZHC 2469

K v K [2021] NZHC 2787

MCGUIRE v SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE [2017] NZCA 583

RUPE V ACC HC TAU CIV-2005-470-910