Barfoot v O'Meara

[2020] NZHC 1879

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-000686

[2020] NZHC 1879

UNDER

the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

the Tamaki Estuary Protection Society Inc.

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER BARFOOT, BETHANY MEGAN EVANS,

JAMES REGINALD SINCLAIR,
JULIE CHAMBERS, CHARLES WORTH, OLIVER HOFFMAN,
DORTHE SIGGAARD,

SIU MAN LORA YOUNG and BARBARA SHAW

Applicants

AND

PATRICK O’MEARA

First Respondent

DENNY NGAHAUEWHA THOMPSON
Second Respondent

TAMAKI ESTUARY PROTECTION SOCIETY INC.

Third Respondent

Hearing:

[On the Papers]

Appearances:

R S Pidgeon for the Applicants

P O’Meara (Self-represented First Respondent) in Person

D N Thompson (Self-represented Second Respondent) in Person K M Muller, Amicus Curiae

Judgment:

30 July 2020

JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS J

[re Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 July 2020 at 3.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

BARFOOT v O’MEARA [2020] NZHC 1879 [30 July 2020]

[1]                 In my judgment dated 29 May 2019, I granted the applicants’ application for judicial review.1 I made timetabling directions regarding the exchange of costs memoranda.

[2]                 A costs memorandum on behalf of the applicants was filed within the stipulated time period. The respondents did not file a memorandum in response. There appears to have been an oversight in the Registry, as the applicants’ memorandum was not referred to me until last week. That oversight explains the delay in issuing this judgment, and, on behalf of the Court, I apologise for the inconvenience caused.

[3]                 The applicants have calculated costs according to the High Court scale (schedule 2B) as amounting to $57,757, plus disbursements of $8,301.01, for a total of $66,058.01. As counsel for the applicants points out, there were features of the respondents’ conduct in the proceeding that may have justified an uplift from scale.

[4]                 However, the actual costs and disbursements incurred are substantially less than those calculated according to scale. Rule 14.2(f) of the High Court Rules 2016 provides that an award of costs should not exceed the costs incurred by the party claiming costs. On this basis, I am satisfied that actual costs and disbursements amounting to $39,240.34 should be awarded to the applicants. I order accordingly.

Edwards J

Counsel:     R S Pidgeon, Auckland

K M Muller, Auckland

Solicitors:    Tompkins Wake, Auckland

Copies To: P O’Meara, Auckland

D N Thompson, Auckland

1      Barfoot v O’Meara [2019] NZHC 1186.