Clements v Auckland Council

[2018] NZHC 2388

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-404-002792

[2018] NZHC 2388

BETWEEN

MIRIAM CLEMENTS

Applicant

AND

AUCKLAND COUNCIL

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	11 September 2018

JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J [COSTS]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie On 11 September 2018 at 2.00pm

Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
Meredith Connell, Wellington

Copy to:
M Clements

CLEMENTS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 2388 [11 September 2018]

[1]        I refer to my judgment of 15 August 2018.1 I awarded costs to the Auckland Council (the Council) on a 2B basis, together with its usual disbursements.2

[2]        The Council filed a memorandum seeking costs calculated on a 2B basis. The total amount sought was $54,565.50 – inclusive of disbursements.

[3]        Ms Clements was given the opportunity to respond to the Council’s application. She filed a lengthy memorandum. Unfortunately, it did not engage with the costs application. Rather, it took issue with the Court’s refusal to adjourn the hearing, with Jagose J’s dealings  with  the  matter  and  with  my  own  decision.  Ms Clements advised that she filed a notice of appeal in respect of my decision.

[4]        The only matter of potential relevance was an assertion by Ms Clements that Fitzgerald J had ordered that the matter was one of public interest and that costs were waived.

[5]        I have checked the file. On 28 March 2018, Fitzgerald J dismissed an application by the Council seeking security for costs.3 The Judge did accept that the matter was one of some public interest, but she did not order that costs would be waived.4 Rather, she declined the Council’s application that Ms Clements should pay security for costs.

[6]        Costs normally follow the event.5 In the present case, the Council is the successful party. The High Court Rules do provide that costs can be reduced if the proceedings concerned a matter of public interest, but only if the party opposing costs acted reasonably in the conduct of the proceeding.6 Here, Ms Clements did not act reasonably. She filed a very large number of applications – most of little or no merit. She failed to turn up at the hearing. She failed to file submissions. The proceedings were struck out for want of prosecution.

1      Clements v Auckland Council [2018] NZHC 2084.

2 At [33].

3      Clements v Auckland Council [2018] NZHC 553.

4 At [44].

5      High Court Rules, r 14.2(1)(a).

6      Rule 14.7(e)

[7]        I have checked the various steps which the Council says it has taken. Insofar as I can see, they are correct and the amounts claimed are in accordance with the relevant High Court Rules and costs schedules.

[8]        Accordingly, I make an order for costs in favour of the Council and against Ms Clements, in the sum of $53,185.50. I also make an order for disbursements – namely filing fees, in the sum of $1,380. It follows that the total award of costs and disbursements is in the sum of $54,565.50.

Wylie J