Foote v Police
[2022] NZHC 2060
•19 August 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE
CIV-2022-463-9
[2022] NZHC 2060
BETWEEN TONY CHARLES FOOTE
Appellant
AND
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent
Hearing: On the papers Counsel:
E R Dyche for the Appellant
A L McConachy for the Respondent
Judgment:
19 August 2022
JUDGMENT OF GORDON J
[As to costs]
This judgment was delivered by me
on 19 August 2022 at 11:45 am, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:
Solicitors/Counsel:
E R Dyche, Pawson Law Ltd, Te Puke
A L McConachy, Crown Solicitor, Rotorua
FOOTE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 2060 [19 August 2022]
[1] This is a costs decision following my judgment refusing the appeal on a question of law concerning rights of appeal under the Arms Act 1983 by the appellant Tony Foote in Foote v New Zealand Police.1
[2] The respondent, the New Zealand Police (Police), as the successful party applies for costs against Mr Foote.
[3] Ms McConachy for the Police calculates costs under the High Court Rules 2016 as $6,916.50. However, she notes that the actual costs incurred by the Police (excluding GST) were $5,079.56. Having regard to r 14.2(1)(f) of the High Court Rules which provides that an award of costs should not exceed the costs incurred by the party claiming costs, the Police seek recovery of the actual costs incurred.
[4] Ms Dyche for Mr Foote agrees that costs of $5,079.56 (excluding GST) should be ordered.
[5] I accept that the steps set out in the memorandum of counsel for the Police were steps that were taken and that the amount of $6,916.50 is the amount that could be claimed under the High Court Rules.
[6] However, given that the actual costs were less than that amount, the actual costs should be the amount awarded.
[7] I make an order that Mr Foote pay $5,079.56 (excluding GST) as costs to the Police.
Gordon J
1 Foote v New Zealand Police [2022] NZHC 1670.