COLLINS EZEALA AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE

[2024] NZHC 3124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-1765

[2024] NZHC 3124

UNDER

the Summary Proceedings Act 1957

IN THE MATTER

of an application for leave to appeal under s 115 of the Act

BETWEEN

COLLINS EZEALA

Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

Self-represented Applicant

D Houghton and N Narayanan for the Respondent

Judgment:

25 October 2024

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

[As to costs]

This judgment was delivered by me

on 25 October 2024 at 11 am, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell, Auckland Copy to:                 The Applicant

EZEALA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 3124 [25 October 2024]

[1]    On 11 October 2024 I delivered a judgment refusing an application by the applicant, Collins Ezeala, for leave to appeal two decisions of Judge Harrison in the District Court at Auckland in August 2015 and February 2017.1

[2]    I reserved costs and directed the parties in the first instance to seek to agree costs.2

[3]    However, separate memoranda have since been filed. In her memorandum of 15 October 2024 Ms Houghton, counsel for the Police, advises that counsel made email contact with Mr Ezeala (who is self-represented) proposing that $5,616.50 in costs was payable on a standard 2B basis.

[4]    Those are the costs that  are now sought,  as set  out in a table attached  to  Ms Houghton’s submissions and attached to this judgment as Annexure A.

[5]    Ms Houghton notes that in his email response to the costs proposal, Mr Ezeala appeared to agree with the quantum but his overall position was that the issue of costs should be reserved until he had the opportunity to raise issues of recusal and apparent bias on my part. Ms Houghton submits that it is appropriate for costs to be awarded at this stage.

[6]    In his memorandum of 21 October 2024 Mr Ezeala says that he responded by email to counsel for the Police and “advised the agreement of the total costs as calculated” but there was a perceived bias and conflict of interest on my part. He says costs should be reserved pending final determination of judicial review on this issue.

[7]    Mr Ezeala says he filed an application for judicial review on 21 October 2024. The Court understands from the Registry that the application was not in fact accepted for filing.

1      Ezeala v New Zealand Police [2024] NZHC 2955.

2      At [54]–[55].

[8]    I record that it is not accepted that I should have recused myself from hearing Mr Ezeala’s application for leave to appeal. There was no basis for me to do so. However, a costs judgment is not the place to rehearse the arguments.

[9]    But in any event the fact that the losing party proposes to bring or has brought an appeal, or an application for leave to appeal or any other application to challenge the decision in respect of which costs are sought, is not in itself a basis to defer a decision on costs.

[10]   I consider it is appropriate for costs to be ordered now and that the amount claimed is correct under the High Court Rules 2016.

Order

[11]   I order Mr Ezeala to pay costs of $5,616.50 to the respondent, the New Zealand Police.

Gordon J

Annexure A