New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Lay litigant costs

Legal area

Court

30 Apr 2020

WARD v WARD and JAMES [2020] NZHC 844

Citation

[2020] NZHC 844
Court

High Court

Allan and Diane were entitled to ordinary 2B scale costs of $13,145 for their successful summary judgment application; increased costs were not warranted because Russell's procedural failures did not make him liable to an uplift on Allan and Diane's application, and although Russell acted unreasonably in pursuing his own summary judgment (justifying departure from the usual reservation of costs for that application), costs related to Russell's unsuccessful summary judgment are reserved to be dealt with at the substantive hearing; the NZBORA challenge by Russell failed and did not prevent an a…
24 Feb 2020

WARD v LOCHORE [2020] NZCA 23

Citation

[2020] NZCA 23
Court

Court of Appeal

The extension of time was declined because the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success: the High Court's award of costs was an orthodox exercise of discretion under the High Court Rules and consistent with the primary rule that a lay litigant does not ordinarily recover costs; there was no error of principle or other basis to overturn the costs decision.
16 Nov 2018

Hunter v Auckland Council [2018] NZHC 2975

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2975
Court

High Court

The Court held there is jurisdiction to award a lay litigant reasonable disbursements for legal advice where the fees were specific to the proceeding, reasonably necessary and reasonable in amount; applied a proportionality check against what would have been recoverable on scale had the litigant been represented to avoid windfall recovery. The Court awarded a contribution of NZD 5,500 towards the applicant's barrister fees, awarded court fees, expert fee and council file fee, awarded NZD 65 for the hardcopy RMA and NZD 2,000 for fees associated with the undertaking as to damages, and disallow…
11 May 2018

Savage v Accident Compensation Corporation (Application for Costs)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 71
Court

District Court

The court awarded a partial contribution to disbursements because lay litigants may recover reasonable and necessary disbursements; on the evidence the court apportioned and allowed $620 for technical/home‑help assistance and $1,000 for printing/stationery as a generous but proportionate contribution, totaling $1,620.00.
27 Oct 2017

SANDILANDS v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2017] NZHC 2640

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2640
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion to allow reimbursement only for those portions of professional fees that were demonstrably and directly related to filing and bringing the successful judicial review: full recovery was allowed for Rainey Collins (net of the already awarded filing fee) because their work materially assisted the claim, while only a limited AUD 270 of Fenton O'Shea's fees was recoverable because the remainder was unrelated or duplicative; detailed connection to the successful claim and avoidance of duplication governed the quantum awarded.
28 Sept 2017

SANDILANDS v NZ LAW SOCIETY [2017] NZHC 2369

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2369
Court

High Court

Because the first respondent admitted a reviewable error, the Court set aside the Standards Committee decision and remitted the matter for fresh consideration; the applicant, as a lay litigant, is not entitled to recover solicitor 'costs' absent exceptional circumstances which were not shown; limited disbursements that were reasonably incurred and shown may be ordered (filing fee and courier charges), but fees paid to law firms require particularised, unredacted invoices before any reimbursement can be ordered.
17 Mar 2016

LOW VOLUME VEHICLE TECHNICAL ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED & ANOR v BRETT [2016] NZHC 467

Citation

[2016] NZHC 467
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion and ordered that costs lie where they fall: the plaintiffs' interim injunction application was refused and the defendant, a lay litigant who breached a prior settlement and only removed statements shortly before hearing, was not entitled to reimbursement of counsel fees; likewise the plaintiffs were not the successful party for costs purposes given the high threshold for prior restraint in defamation.
9 Oct 2009

R PRASAD V INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2009-404-001521

Citation

openlaw-992878ac_5a22_41ad_bc91_cc6f8644b321.pdf
Court

High Court

Costs of $14,931 awarded against Mr Prasad for the discontinuance because his District Court proceedings were misconceived, unnecessary and amounted to impermissible re-litigation; indemnity approach justified for discontinuance costs; no costs awarded to the successful appellant on the appeal because the District Court proceedings were misconceived and disbursements were not properly recoverable by a lay litigant.
30 Sept 2009

STUART-MENTEATH V THE REGISTRAR OF PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS AND SECURITY GUARDS AND ANOR HC CHCH CIV 2009-409-000488

Citation

openlaw-072cc494_963f_4de0_a08c_671a77b53b96.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for costs was dismissed because the constitutional principle that costs are only awarded against judicial officers in the rarest circumstances outweighs the plaintiff's personal expenditure; the Registrar, being quasi-judicial, is protected absent exceptional circumstances, and no such circumstances were shown.
27 Feb 2007

LUCAS V PETERSON AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2001-404-3668

Citation

openlaw-9ec00a1c_a565_427b_9565_23dc33a9b95a.pdf
Court

High Court

The defendants are entitled to a reduced costs award on ordinary costs principles reflecting that the weight of the case lay in the two issues on which they succeeded on appeal, but PPSSL is limited to either category 3B costs or a fixed award equal to 20% less than Fisher J's original award, whichever is the lesser; Mr Peterson, as a lay litigant who pursued the defence jointly with PPSSL until late in the hearing and whose interest was personal, is not entitled to recover costs.