Foote v Police

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.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant Tony Foote appealed against the decision of the High Court to refuse his appeal on a question of law concerning rights of appeal under the Arms Act 1983. The respondent, the New Zealand Police, as the successful party, applied for costs against Mr Foote. The court was required to decide the appropriate amount of costs to be awarded to the Police, considering the actual costs incurred and the provisions of the High Court Rules 2016.

The court considered the submissions from both parties and noted that the actual costs incurred by the Police were less than the amount that could be claimed under the High Court Rules. The court held that the award of costs should not exceed the costs incurred by the party claiming costs, in accordance with r 14.2(1)(f) of the High Court Rules. Both parties agreed that the actual costs incurred by the Police should be the amount awarded.

The court accepted 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 was the amount that could be claimed under the High Court Rules. However, given that the actual costs were less than that amount, the actual costs should be the amount awarded. Therefore, the court made an order that Mr Foote pay $5,079.56 (excluding GST) as costs to the Police.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established