Commissioner of Police v Robinson

[2021] NZHC 2415

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2014-485-008678

[2021] NZHC 2415

IN THE MATTER

of an application pursuant to s 41 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

HUGH JAMES ROBINSON

First Respondent

AND

SVETLANA ROBINSON

Second Respondent

AND

JAMIE DANIEL ROBINSON

Third Respondent

AND

ROADING CONSULTANTS AND APPLICATORS LIMITED

Fourth Respondent

AND

MARSHA HOLDINGS LIMITED

Fifth Respondent

AND

AORANGI FAMILY TRUST

Sixth Respondent

See over for Interested Parties

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

C White for Applicant

A M S Williams for First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Respondents and Third Interested Party

Judgment:

15 September 2021

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J RE: COSTS DECISION

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v ROBINSON [2021] NZHC 2415 [15 September 2021]

AND

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND

First Interested Party

AND

MALTECH PROPRIETARY LIMITED

Second Interested Party

AND

HIGH PERFORMANCE HEALTH LIMITED

Third Interested Party

AND

PETER GEOFFREY ROBINSON

Fourth Interested Party

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 September 2021 at 11 am, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

[1]                 On 22 July 2021 I issued a decision dismissing the respondent’s application to dismiss or stay the proceedings.1

[2]                 Costs were reserved. I indicated my preliminary view that costs should be awarded on a 2B basis. If costs were not agreed, I reserved leave for counsel to file memoranda on any disputed costs issue and required such application to be filed within 20 working days of the date of the decision.2

[3]                 On 9 August 2021, and within the timeframe directed, counsel for the Commissioner of Police filed a memorandum seeking costs on a 2B basis. Those costs were calculated at $6,094.54.3

1      Commissioner of Police v Robinson [2021] NZHC 1856.

2 At [80].

3      As set out paragraph 4(b) of counsel’s memorandum dated 9 August 2021.

[4]                 On 13 August 2021, I directed that any submissions in opposition to the application were to be filed by 23 August 2021, and advised that costs would be determined on the papers.

[5]                 No response to the Commissioner’s application for costs has been received, nor has there been a request for an extension of those timetabling directions. Accordingly, I make this decision based on the materials which are before me.

[6]                 The Commissioner was successful in resisting the respondents’ application for dismissal or stay of the proceedings, so he is clearly entitled to costs. Furthermore, there have been no grounds advanced for departing from the usual position (and my preliminary view), that costs should be awarded on a 2B basis.

[7]The calculation of those costs provided by the Commissioner is as follows:

Step in the Proceeding	Days or Part Days Claimed
Appearance at mentions hearing or call- over	0.2
Filing     opposition     to     interlocutory application	0.6
Preparation of written submissions	1.5
Appearance at hearing of defended application for sole or principal counsel	0.25
Total	2.55

[8]                 That calculation appears uncontentious. Indeed, the claim for one appearance at a mentions hearing is likely to be (as counsel for the Commissioner says) conservative. At the daily recovery rate of $2,390 per day, the Commissioner claims a total of $6,094.50.

[9]                 Being satisfied the claim is appropriate, I make a costs award against the respondents of $6,094.50.

Solicitors:

Raymond Donnelly & Co. Christchurch Meares Williams Lawyers, Christchurch