Cooke v Valuers Registration Board

[2014] NZHC 1431

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-000610 [2014] NZHC 1431

UNDER

the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 Part 1

IN THE MATTER OF

the Valuers Act 1948

BETWEEN

K R COOKE Plaintiff

AND

VALUERS REGISTRATION BOARD First Defendant

G J CLAPCOTT Second Defendant

Hearing:

28 February 2014

[Submissions (on the Papers) on 24 March, 27 May and
16 June 2014]

Appearances:

K R Cooke (Self-represented Plaintiff) in Person
R K P Stewart for the First Defendant
P J L Hunt for the Second Defendant

Judgment:

24 June 2014

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J [re Costs]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Duffy on 24 June 2014 at 4.30 pm, pursuant to

r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Solicitors:    Izard Weston, Wellington

McElroys, Auckland

Copy To:     K R Cooke, Auckland

COOKE v VALUERS REGISTRATION BOARD [2014] NZHC 1431 [24 June 2014]

[1]      The first defendant was successful in opposing the plaintiff’s judicial review. Accordingly, the first defendant seeks costs against the plaintiff.  Costs are sought on a 2B basis.  The first defendant has provided the Court with a schedule that sets out its costs, totalling $24,328.50, and its disbursements of $2,113.30.  I am satisfied that the schedule correctly sets out the costs to which the first defendant is entitled and that the disbursements claimed are reasonable.  It follows that the first defendant is entitled to costs and disbursements of $26,441.80.

[2]      The second defendant has also sought costs.   He was the person who was affected by the decision being judicially reviewed.  He did not take an active part in the  judicial  review.    Accordingly,  his  costs  on  a  2B  basis  come  to  a  total  of

$2,686.50, and he seeks disbursements of $108.80.  I am satisfied that he is entitled to  these  amounts  under  the  scale  and  accordingly,  he  is  entitled  to  a  total  of

$2,795.30.

[3]      The plaintiff opposes an award of costs to either defendant.  He argues that the claim for costs is premature, because he does not accept the judgment I delivered on the judicial review and he is appealing it.  He also says that he is impecunious and cannot pay costs.   He contends that the applications by the defendants to recover costs are no more than an aggressive move to curtail further attempts by him to obtain justice.  He has requested the Court to exercise its discretion in accordance with the High Court Rules and to deny an award of costs to the defendants.

[4]      I have carefully considered the plaintiff’s opposition to an award of costs to the defendants.  There is nothing in the plaintiff’s submission that detracts from this proceeding being treated the same as the general run of proceedings.  Accordingly, I see no reason why the first defendant should not recover scale costs.

[5]      Whilst the second defendant played no active role in the proceeding, he was someone who under s 9(4) of the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 was required to be joined as a party to the proceeding.   He seeks no more than the time he spent preparing  for  a  s  10  Judicature Amendment Act  conference,  filing  a  notice  of appearance reserving his rights, and appearing at the hearing where he took no active part.   Consequently, the costs he seeks are far less than those sought by the first

defendant, who took an active role in opposing the judicial review proceeding.  It has to be recognised that the second defendant had his own interests to protect and was entitled to participate to the extent that he did.  Indeed, he could, had he wanted to, have taken a more active role in the proceeding, in which case the plaintiff would find  himself  facing  an  application  for  an  even  higher  award  of  costs  than  he presently does.

[6]      I am satisfied, in all the circumstances, that the second defendant is entitled to the award of costs that he seeks.

Duffy J