IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
CIV-2016-485-000527 [2017] NZHC 2036
UNDER Part 18 of the Judicature (High Court
Rules) Amendment Act 2008 and under the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908
IN THE MATTER OF
an Application for Declaratory Judgments
BETWEEN
JOHN ANTHONY EDWARDS Plaintiff
AND
THE DISTRICT COURT AT LOWER HUTT
First Defendant
THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER Second Defendant
WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Interested Party
Hearing: 24 August 2017 Counsel:
Plaintiff in person
No appearance for First Defendant
No appearance for Second Defendant
M V Robinson for Westpac New Zealand LtdJudgment:
24 August 2017
JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J
[1] Mr Edwards’ application for judicial review, and for a declaration was called
before me in open court on 24 August 2017.
[2] At the outset of the hearing Mr Edwards advised me that he wished to seek leave to discontinue his proceeding.
EDWARDS v THE DISTRICT COURT AT LOWER HUTT [2017] NZHC 2036 [24 August 2017]
[3] I explained to Mr Edwards that by discontinuing his proceeding it would be struck out and his proceeding in the High Court would be at an end. He confirmed to me that was his wish.
[4] Mr Edwards’ application was not opposed by Mr Robinson on behalf of
Westpac New Zealand Ltd (Westpac).
[5] Westpac was present as an interested party but did not seek costs.
[6] I have granted Mr Edwards’ application to discontinue the proceeding. It is
struck out. There are no orders as to costs.
D B Collins J
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for First Defendant
J Foster, Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Wellington for Second Defendant
Simpson Grierson, Auckland for Westpac New Zealand Ltd
- AGLC
- Edwards v District Court at Lower Hutt [2017] NZHC 2036
- Case
- [2017] NZHC 2036
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether Edwards' application for judicial review and a declaration should be allowed to proceed and whether any costs should be awarded. The key issue was the validity and scope of Edwards' application, given his decision to discontinue the proceeding at the outset of the hearing. The court needed to determine the procedural implications of such a withdrawal and whether any party should be granted costs as a result of the discontinuance.
Collins J granted Edwards' application to discontinue the proceeding, resulting in the striking out of the application. The court found that since Edwards had explicitly expressed his intention to discontinue the proceeding, the application was effectively concluded. Additionally, since Westpac New Zealand Limited did not oppose the discontinuance and did not seek costs, the court saw no basis to award costs to any party. Consequently, the proceeding was terminated without any orders regarding costs.
In summary, the court ruled that Edwards' application for judicial review and a declaration was to be discontinued, leading to the striking out of the proceeding. No orders for costs were made, reflecting the absence of opposition from Westpac New Zealand Limited and the lack of any specific request for costs from any party involved.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.