28 Apr 2023
The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidential proof of financial hardship (impecuniosity) by way of a sworn affidavit of means; under r 53F(g) and established High Court authority this is required and absent exceptional circumstances the Court will not waive or reduce costs, therefore the application is declined.
29 Jul 2020
Respondent entitled to costs for the High Court appeal but her 14-month failure to notify the Court of the legal aid decision was a serious breach of a court direction that unnecessarily prolonged the proceeding; applying r14.7(f)(i) and giving paramount weight to the child's welfare, the court reduced the claimed High Court costs by 50% to reflect that failure and to avoid producing no net benefit to the child, awarding $6,084.32 with $2,230.00 to be released from security and the balance payable by the appellant.
30 Oct 2019
Costs awarded to the respondent; applicant's bare claim of financial hardship did not justify reduction and applicant's conduct caused unnecessary cost; although s7(1)(a) ambiguity might have justified some discount, actual incurred costs were less than 2B scale so court ordered payment of actual costs and disbursements of $16,544.50.
9 Apr 2018
Awarded reduced costs of $1,000 plus disbursements of $132.73 because the respondent failed to provide evidence of actual costs to justify a higher award and because the applicant's demonstrated financial hardship and possible misunderstanding arising from a confusing INZ letter warranted reduction of the normally applicable scale-based costs.
21 Oct 2016
The court concluded the s 13 requirements were met, there was no acceptable evidential challenge to the debt or GST assessments, prior hardship applications had been declined with no review, and there was insufficient evidence that the debtor could pay or that refusal would be just and equitable under s 37; therefore adjudication was ordered.
7 Mar 2016
The Registrar's waiver was lawful because reg 5's criteria focus on ability to pay (including dependence on New Zealand superannuation) and not on the merits of the proposed appeal; therefore the respondent's challenge based on merits fails and the review application is dismissed.
4 Dec 2013
The court exercised its discretion to reduce the standard 2B costs award because the applicant's documented financial hardship warranted a reduction but did not justify a complete waiver; the applicant was ordered to pay $4,500.
20 Jun 2013
The Registrar's decision was correct because the appellant failed to provide the requisite documentary evidence to show that payment of the filing fee would cause 'undue' financial hardship; the onus was on the appellant and was not discharged, so the waiver was properly declined.
22 Sept 2000
The appellant did not, on the facts found by the District Court, alter his position in reliance on the overpayment and it was not inequitable to require repayment; therefore remission under s.77(2) was not available and the application for leave to appeal was declined as no question of law arose.