Deliu v District Court at Auckland

[2025] NZHC 170

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-001659

[2025] NZHC 170

UNDER

the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016, Part 30 High Court Rules, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and Declaratory Judgments Act 1908

IN THE MATTER

of proceedings moving for an application for judicial review, a writ, a bill of rights claim and a petition for declaratory relief

BETWEEN

FRANCISCO CATALIN DELIU

Applicant

AND

THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND

First Respondent

THE CROWN

Second Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

Applicant in person

G Taylor and R Fistonich for Second Respondent

Judgment:

14 February 2025

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[costs]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 14 February 2025 at 11.00 am

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

Date:………………………

Solicitors/counsel: Crown Law, Wellington

Copy to: F Deliu

DELIU v THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2025] NZHC 170 [14 February 2025]

[1]    On 29 November 2024, I dismissed an application by Mr Deliu seeking judicial review of a decision made by a registry officer at the Auckland District Court to vacate a fixture allocated to hear his application for a stay of criminal proceedings.1

[2]    The parties have been unable to reach agreement regarding the issue of costs. I am therefore required to determine that issue on the basis of the memoranda both parties have filed.

The arguments

[3]    Mr Deliu contends he was the successful party because he was able to clarify the situation in relation to the withdrawal of warrants that had been issued in the District Court for his arrest. He also considers he was successful in obtaining redress on the basis of the following observations that I made at the conclusion of my judgment:

[24]      It will now be for the Crown to file its notice of opposition in the District Court responding as best it can to the matters alleged in Mr Deliu’s application. Mr Deliu and the Crown should then co-operate to reach agreement regarding the timetable required for evidence to be filed so that the application can be allocated a fixture as soon as the priorities of the District Court permit.

[25]      I direct that the Registrar of this Court is to forward a copy of this judgment to the Criminal List Judge at the Auckland District Court so that he or she is aware what has occurred to date, and what now needs to be done.

[4]    The second respondent contends that it was the successful party on the basis that all of Mr Deliu’s claims failed. It says the observations that I made at the conclusion of my judgment did not amount to the granting of redress in favour of  Mr Deliu.

Decision

[5]    I am satisfied that the second respondent was the successful party in the proceeding because Mr Deliu failed to establish each of the arguments that he advanced. The observations that I made at the end of the judgment merely reflected my view of the steps that the parties needed to take to advance outstanding matters in

1      Deliu v The District Court at Auckland [2024] NZHC 3605.

the District Court. They did not constitute orders directing the District Court to take any steps to advance those issues.

[6]    As the successful party, the second respondent is entitled to an award of costs and disbursements in its favour. However, I consider the award should be reduced to reflect the fact that part of the reason Mr Deliu brought the proceeding was to have the warrants for his arrest cancelled. He was not aware that this had already been done when the Crown advised the District Court that the Deputy Solicitor-General (Criminal) had filed a notice staying the charges against Mr Deliu under s 176(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

[7]    The Crown ought to have advised Mr Deliu that it had obtained orders cancelling the warrants for his arrest. His understanding that the warrants remained in force formed a significant part of his basis for bringing the present proceeding.

[8]    The Crown is entitled to an award of costs against Mr Deliu on a category 2B basis together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. However, I exercise my discretion to direct that the costs (but not disbursements) are to be reduced by 25 per cent to reflect the fact that the Crown never advised Mr Deliu that it had obtained orders cancelling the warrants for his arrest.

Lang J