5 Oct 2022
Because the appellant lodged and then withdrew the appeal, he was directly responsible for the respondents incurring costs; the court exercised its discretion to award the respondents costs on a 2B basis in the sum of $2,270.50 as reasonable.
29 Sept 2022
The Court held the abandonment was not informed because trial counsel gave incorrect legal advice about the value of a s 27 report and the prospects of appeal, and exceptional circumstances existed because relevant personal background was not properly considered at sentence; a provisional assessment showed the appeal had some prospects of success, so leave to withdraw the notice of abandonment was granted.
13 Jun 2022
Application to recall was dismissed because none of the limited Horowhenua grounds for recall were established, the Minute recorded the appellant's acceptance that the appeal was withdrawn, and the costs judgment concerned entitlement to costs on the withdrawn appeal.
19 May 2022
Costs were awarded to the respondent because it had promptly advised the appellant that there was no jurisdiction and invited withdrawal, the appellant declined and only later withdrew, causing the respondent to incur costs; the appropriate assessment was on a 2A basis for one day, resulting in $2,390.00 plus disbursements $173.91.
5 May 2021
The Court declared that the SSAA was wrong to refuse the applicant's withdrawal of her appeal; an appellant with the right to withdraw may do so unless the withdrawal constitutes an abuse of process, and the SSAA could not invoke its status as a Commission of Inquiry to continue the appeal outside its jurisdiction where no abuse of process was established.
13 May 2020
The District Court recall and costs decisions were separate and gave rise to legitimate rights of appeal, so the appeals were not vexatious or an abuse of process; indemnity costs were therefore inappropriate; however, on withdrawal the respondent was the successful party and was entitled to costs on a Category 2B basis and disbursements, and the security for costs paid into Court was to be paid out to the respondent.
25 Aug 2017
Because the respondent agreed to pay costs and the numerical difference between the parties' proposals was small, the Judge exercised her discretion to avoid wasting judicial resources and fixed a reasonable costs award of $250 in favour of the appellant.
8 Dec 2015
The High Court allowed the appeals, holding the Environment Court erred in concluding that leave is required to withdraw an appeal simply because a consent memorandum had been filed and erred in finding that withdrawal in these circumstances was an abuse of process. A consent memorandum is a negotiated position submitted for the Court's endorsement and does not, without Court orders, amount to a new binding decision, an irrevocable undertaking, or render the consent authority functus officio; consequently Mullen v Parkbrook Holdings Ltd governs and parties may withdraw appeals absent clear ab…
22 Sept 2015
The respondent was entitled to costs following the withdrawal of the appeal; r 53D(1)(b) allows costs for steps not listed in Schedule 2, the respondent had taken those steps and incurred costs, and a pragmatic half‑day allowance calculated on the standard appeal scale appropriately compensates the respondent, resulting in an award of $995.
2 Sept 2015
The High Court dismissed the appeal: the Environment Court did not err in law in declining to award costs to the Council because the Judge's factual findings and discretionary weighing (including that MAL withdrew following receipt of Council evidence and that the Council altered the battleground) were open to him; the Council's public interest role does not create a presumption for costs and the Practice Note did not mandatorily apply in the factual circumstances.