Attorney-General v Taylor

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA470/2015
[2019] NZCA 86

BETWEEN	ATTORNEY-GENERAL Appellant
AND	ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR First Respondent HINEMANU NGARONOA, SANDRA WILDE, KIRSTY OLIVIA FENSOM AND CLAIRE THRUPP Second to Fifth Respondents

Court:	Kós P, French and Miller JJ
Counsel:	G M Taylor for Appellant D A Ewen for First Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	3 April 2019 at 11.45 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The Crown must pay costs to Mr Taylor for a complex appeal on a band A basis with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

Mr Taylor moves for costs following the judgment of the Supreme Court.[1] The Supreme Court directed that any issue as to costs in this Court should be dealt with here.
[1]Attorney-General v Taylor [2018] NZSC 104, [2019] 1 NZLR 213.
We had reasoned, contrary to the view later taken by the Supreme Court, that Mr Taylor lacked standing, but that was not the basis on which he was denied costs. We were advised that he was legally aided.[2]
[2]Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215, [2017] 3 NZLR 24 at [190].
Mr Ewen now advises that the application is made with the sanction of the Legal Services Commissioner under s 105(b) of the Legal Services Act 2011. That being so, we accept that it is proper to award costs.
There is no dispute as to the appropriate band. Accordingly, the Crown must pay Mr Taylor’s costs for a complex appeal on a band A basis with usual disbursements.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Appellant
Ord Legal, Wellington for First Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the Attorney-General appealed against the decision of the Supreme Court which had ruled in favour of Arthur William Taylor. The case involved complex legal issues surrounding the standing of Mr Taylor to bring a constitutional challenge against certain legislative provisions. The respondents to the appeal were Mr Taylor, and three other individuals who had intervened in the case.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal centred on the question of whether Mr Taylor had standing to bring the original constitutional challenge. The Court of Appeal had previously held that Mr Taylor did not have standing, a decision that was later overturned by the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal was then required to determine the appropriate costs order to be made in the circumstances of the case.

The Court of Appeal held that Mr Taylor's application for costs was made with the sanction of the Legal Services Commissioner, and as such, it was proper to award costs. The Court noted that there was no dispute as to the appropriate band for the costs, and accordingly, ordered that the Crown must pay Mr Taylor's costs for a complex appeal on a band A basis with usual disbursements. The Court also noted that Mr Taylor was legally aided.

In summary, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Supreme Court that Mr Taylor had standing to bring the constitutional challenge, and ordered the Crown to pay his costs on a band A basis with usual disbursements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established