Barfoot v O'Meara

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-686

[2019] NZHC 2642

UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

IN THE MATTER

of Tamaki Estuary Protection Society In.

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER BARFOOT, BETHANY MEGAN EVANS, JAMES REGINALD SINCLAIR, JULIE CHAMBERS, CHARLES WORTH, OLIVER HOFFMAN, DORTHE SIGGAARD, SIU MAN, LORA YOUNG, BARBARA SHAW

Plaintiffs/Applicants

AND

PATRICK GORDON O’MEARA

First Respondent

AND

DENNY NGAHAUEWHA THOMPSON

Second Respondent

AND

TAMAKI ESTUARY PROTECTION SOCIETY

Third Respondent

On the papers

Appearances:

R Pidgeon for Applicants

No appearance for Respondents
KM Muller, as counsel assisting the Court

Judgment:

16 October 2019

COSTS JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 16 October 2019 at 3.00 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Barfoot & Ors v O'Meara & Ors [2019] NZHC 2642 [16 October 2019]

[1] On 5 September 2019, I delivered a judgment in this proceeding, finding the respondents, Mr Thompson and Mr O'Meara, to be in contempt of Court for deliberately failing to comply with an Order made by Edwards J on 29 May 2019.1

[2] In giving judgment I made an order for costs against the first and second respondents and invited the applicants to file a memorandum quantifying the costs sought. In accordance with the directions as to costs made in my judgment, the applicants have filed their costs memorandum; they seek costs on a Category 2B basis.

[3] Accordingly, I direct that the first and second respondents pay the applicants' costs and disbursements sought, in the sum of $8,038.13.

............................................................

Walker J

1 Barfoot & Ors v O'Meara [2019] NZHC 2217.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves a dispute between a group of individuals and two respondents, Mr Thompson and Mr O'Meara, with an additional respondent being the Tamaki Estuary Protection Society. The applicants sought a review of the decisions made by the respondents in relation to an Order made by Edwards J. The applicants alleged that the respondents had deliberately failed to comply with the Order, leading to a finding of contempt of Court. The applicants subsequently sought costs from the respondents based on their findings of contempt.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants were entitled to costs on a Category 2B basis, as they claimed. The court had to consider the nature of the contempt found and the appropriate level of costs to be awarded to the applicants. The court also had to consider the submissions made by the applicants in their costs memorandum.

The court found that the applicants were indeed entitled to costs on a Category 2B basis, as they had successfully established contempt of Court against the respondents. The court accepted the applicants' submissions and directed that the respondents pay the applicants' costs and disbursements sought, amounting to $8,038.13. The court considered the nature of the contempt found and the applicants' success in establishing the contempt to be sufficient grounds for awarding costs on a Category 2B basis.

In conclusion, the court found in favour of the applicants and ordered the respondents to pay the applicants' costs and disbursements sought, amounting to $8,038.13. The court considered the applicants' success in establishing contempt of Court and the appropriate level of costs to be awarded based on the nature of the contempt found.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

UNDER	the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016
IN THE MATTER	of Tamaki Estuary Protection Society In.
BETWEEN	CHRISTOPHER BARFOOT, BETHANY MEGAN EVANS, JAMES REGINALD SINCLAIR, JULIE CHAMBERS, CHARLES WORTH, OLIVER HOFFMAN, DORTHE SIGGAARD, SIU MAN, LORA YOUNG, BARBARA SHAW Plaintiffs/Applicants
AND	PATRICK GORDON O’MEARA First Respondent
AND	DENNY NGAHAUEWHA THOMPSON Second Respondent
AND	TAMAKI ESTUARY PROTECTION SOCIETY Third Respondent