Emet v New Zealand Transport Agency - Waka Kotahi

[2025] NZHC 2656

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2024-485-028

[2025] NZHC 2656

BETWEEN

ATOM EMET

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY / WAKA KOTAHI

Defendant

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

A Emet Self Represented

J P Papps and S V McMullan for Defendant

Judgment:

12 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

[Costs]

Introduction

[1]                  In a judgment dated 7 July 2025, this Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal under the Human Rights Act 1993.1 That judgment did not address costs. The appellant was required to pay in Court by way of security for costs, the sum of $1,195. The respondent applies for the sum of security for costs be released to them.

Submissions

[2]                  The respondent’s memorandum dated 10 July 2025 submits that it is the successful party in the appeal, and is therefore, entitled to costs. The respondent seeks that the security for costs ordered by the Court of $1,195 be released to it in payment of its costs.

1      Emet v New Zealand Transport Agency [2025] NZHC 1842.

EMET v NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY / WAKA KOTAHI [2025] NZHC 2656 [12 September 2025]

[3]                  In a memorandum dated 21 July 2025, the appellant opposes the release of security for costs. The appellant argues that the respondent failed to comply with the Court’s directions and the timetable changes requested by the appellant. As a result, the appellant submits that the respondent’s actions precluded him from preparing a case and filing full submissions.

Analysis

[4]                  I do not accept the appellant’s claims that the respondent failed to comply with the Court’s directions for filing requirements. The respondent’s memorandum to the Court dated 6 May 2025 highlighted that the Human Rights Review Tribunal (HRRT) notified the respondent that it did not have any notes of evidence available. The registry then requested for the HRRT to send the Court the audio recordings. The Court received the audio files on 15 May 2025. Therefore, the delay in the transcription of the hearing was not due to the respondent’s actions and does not affect the respondent’s claim to costs.

[5]                  As I highlighted in my minute dated 30 May 2025, Justice Isac directed the appellant (in a minute dated 5 February 2025) that he was to file and serve his points on appeal by 28 February 2025 and his written submissions by 31 March 2025.2 The appellant filed his points on appeal by 28 February 2025 but did not file submissions by the required date. Therefore, he was on notice since 5 February 2025 that he was required to file submissions.

[6]                  In any case, the notes of evidence and the other documents the appellant referred to in his memorandum were not required for the appellant to produce sufficient submissions. The basis of the appeal was on the written decision of the HRRT itself, which was released on 21 November 2023 and made available to the appellant.3

2      Emet v New Zealand Transport Agency HC Wellington CIV-2024-485-028, 30 May 2025.

3      Emet v New Zealand Transport Agency [2023] NZHRRT 41.

Outcome

[7]                  Therefore, I agree with the respondent that this is a case where they are entitled to costs in the sum of $1,195 and I order that the $1,195 in security for costs is to be released to the respondent.4

Churchman J

Solicitors:
Chapman Tripp, Wellington for Defendant

4      High Court Rules 2016, r 14.2(1)(a); and Human Rights Act 1993, s 125.