Commissioner of Police v Ross (aka Smith)

[2022] NZHC 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2018-409-688

[2022] NZHC 2011

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

CONNIE ELIZABETH ROSS (aka SMITH)

Second Respondent

AND

RICHARD WILLIAM ROSS

Third Respondent

AND

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND

First Interested Party

Submissions filed:

9 August 2022 and 11 August 2022

Counsel:

C C White for Applicant

P J Kaye for Second and Third Respondents

Judgment:

15 August 2022

(Determined on the papers)

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 August 2022 at 11.30 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v ROSS [2022] NZHC 2011 [15 August 2022]

[1]                   On the application of the Commissioner of Police for civil forfeiture orders, the Court gave judgment for the Commissioner against the second and third respondents.1 The Court dismissed the third respondent’s application to have his property excluded from being realised.2

[2]                   The Commissioner seeks costs against the second and third respondents mainly on a 2B basis ($16,610.50 together with a disbursements of $358).

[3]                   Mr White provided a table of costs calculations, making claims for appropriate items.

[4]                   Mr Kaye, for the respondents, responsibly did not oppose the making of an order as such but queried whether the calculation for two items was too high.

[5]                   Of the two items (37 and 38 in terms of Schedule 3, High Court Rules) the first was calculated on the basis Band B applies. That means, in the case of Item 37 (filing the application and supporting affidavits), an allocation of two days. Having regard to the nature of this case, that allocation was clearly appropriate.

[6]                   The claim under Item 38 arose because the Commissioner needed to file affidavits in opposition to Mr Ross’s cross-application. Item 38 allows on a Band A basis one day for the filing both of the notice of opposition and the supporting affidavits. The Commissioner filed some but not lengthy affidavit evidence in opposition. Responsibly, Mr White has not claimed, under Item 38, the one day allowance provided for in Schedule 3 for Band A, instead limiting the claim to 0.3 days.

[7]                   Mr White has confirmed that the total costs order sought is less than the fees charged to the Commissioner. From my own knowledge of the case, and in particular the extent of evidence, the costs order sought is clearly reasonable.

1      Commissioner of Police v Ross [2022] NZHC 1757.

2 At [52].

Order

[8]                   I order the second and third respondents (jointly and severally) to pay to the applicant the costs of the proceeding fixed in the sum of $16,610.50 together with disbursements fixed in the sum of $358.

Osborne J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Christchurch

Jennifer Connell, Newmarket, Auckland Counsel: P J Kaye, Barrister, Auckland