Derrett v Police

[2024] NZHC 2072

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2023-412-89 CIV-2023-412-90

CIV-2023-412-91 [2024] NZHC 2072

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPER NOEL DERRETT, NATHAN ZACH DERRETT AND

ALEXANDRIA SAMANTHA DERRETT
Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	G A Paine for Appellants R D Smith for Respondent
Judgment:	29 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF EATON J

(as to costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

DERRETT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 2072 [29 July 2024]

[1]    On 1 March 2024 I dismissed three applications seeking leave to appeal a decision  of  the  District  Court.  Those  applications  were   brought   by Christopher Noel Derrett, his son, Nathan Zach Derrett, and his daughter, Alexandria Samantha Derrett.

[2]    Counsel were invited to file costs memoranda if agreement as to costs could not be reached.

[3]    Mr Smith, for the respondent, filed a memorandum seeking a global costs order in relation to all three proceedings on a 2B basis in the sum of $5,377.50. On the same day as filing the memorandum, Mr Smith said “Mr Paine and I are hopeful that we will be able to resolve the issues of costs between us, however that has not occurred as yet.”

[4]    On 19 July 2024, having received no submissions on behalf of the appellants, I indicated that I would determine the costs issue on papers if the appellants’ memoranda were not filed by 5 pm on 26 July 2024. I invited Mr Smith to confirm if he was proposing the Court make a costs award of one-third of the total sum sought to be applied evenly across each of the three appellants. Mr Smith has since confirmed that is the respondent’s position. No memoranda have been filed on behalf of the appellants.

[5]    The respondent was successful. I found the appellants had not raised an arguable question of law on the appeal. I see no reason why costs should not follow the event. Mr Smith seeks scale costs on a 2B basis. I consider that appropriate and no issue has been raised on behalf of the appellants as regards the scale costs sought.

[6]    I fix total costs as $5,377.50 and I direct that each of the appellants pay the respondent one-third of that sum, being $1,792.50.

...................................................

Eaton J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitors, Dunedin

Counsel:

G A Paine, Barrister, Dunedin