Fuller v Attorney-General

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-000070

[2025] NZHC 1317

BETWEEN
PETER FULLER

Plaintiff

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Defendant

Judgment:

(On the papers)
26 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

(Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 May 2025 at 10 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Defendant

FULLER v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2025] NZHC 1317 [26 May 2025]

Introduction

[1]This is a costs judgment.

[2]On 24 March 2025, I gave judgment in favour of the Attorney-General.1

[3] The plaintiff, Mr Fuller, brought a civil claim alleging breaches of ss 22 and 23 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) and the torts of assault and false imprisonment. Mr Fuller had been required to report to the Henderson Police Station daily between 8 am and 4 pm. On 26 June 2021, he reported over an hour late and when his explanation for his lateness was found to be untrue, a Police Sergeant arrested him and placed him in a custody unit. As Mr Fuller resisted, the Sergeant placed his hand on Mr Fuller’s arm to move him to the unit. I found that the Sergeant was justified in this action. I also found that there had been no breach of Mr Fuller’s rights in respect of NZBORA.

[4]In my judgment, I concluded:2

Mr Fuller is liable to pay costs to the Attorney-General. If they are claimed, then I will receive the Crown’s memorandum no later than 2 May 2025. In such event, Mr Fuller may file a reply memorandum no later than 16 May 2025.

Submissions

[5] On 2 May 2025, the Attorney-General filed submissions on costs, seeking costs on a 2B basis and disbursements totalling $16,156. Mr Fuller filed a memorandum in response on 4 May 2025. He opposes the costs sought and submits that the Court should decline or substantially reduce any costs award due to “serious injustice, personal hardship, and the public interest” in his case.

[6] In his memorandum, Mr Fuller essentially repeats his initial claims, submitting that he brought proceedings in good faith to “challenge unlawful and traumatic conduct by the police” and that the fact I dismissed his claims should not lead to costs

1 Fuller v Attorney-General [2025] NZHC 618.
2 At [30].

being awarded against him as he was “simply trying to seek justice in a forum available to the public.”

[7] He also says costs should not be awarded against him as he is impecunious, acting in person, and unable to pay the costs sought without suffering undue hardship. The Attorney-General notes that litigants in person are liable to pay costs in the usual way and that impecuniosity is not an answer to a claim for costs.

Decision

[8] Costs are at the discretion of the Court.3 A fundamental principle of the law of costs is that they follow the event — the unsuccessful party pays costs to the successful party.4 As Mr Fuller did not succeed on any of his claims, I see no reason to depart from this well-established principle in this case.

[9] For completeness, Mr Fuller’s financial situation is not a reason to depart from the standard outcome of costs following the event. Financial hardship is not an answer to a claim for a costs award.5 The Court must make costs awards at a meaningful level, even against an impecunious party, particularly where, as in this case, the case lacked merit.6
[10] Accordingly, I award costs and disbursements against the plaintiff as sought by the Attorney-General.

Orders

[11] Mr Fuller is to pay the Attorney-General costs in the sum of $16,013 and disbursements in the sum of $143. In total, Mr Fuller is to pay the Attorney-General
$16,156.

Brewer J

3      High Court Rules 2016, r 14.1.
4      Rule 14.2(1)(a); and Manukau Golf Club v Shoye Venture Ltd [2012] NZSC 109, [2013] 1 NZLR 305 at [8].
5      Chesterfields Preschools Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2011] NZCA 640 at [7].
6      Te Whare o te Kaitiaki Ngahere Incorporated Society v West Coast Regional Council [2014] NZHC 2969 at [16]; and Tuck v Keedwall [2016] NZHC 794 at [11].

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This judgment relates to a costs application in the case of Fuller v Attorney-General. The plaintiff, Peter Fuller, brought a civil claim against the Attorney-General, alleging breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the torts of assault and false imprisonment in relation to an incident involving police officers. The claim was dismissed, and the costs were assessed in favour of the Attorney-General. The central issue before the court was whether Fuller should be held liable for the costs incurred by the Attorney-General, and if so, whether any reduction should be made due to Fuller's financial situation.

The court began by noting that costs in the High Court are discretionary and that a fundamental principle is that the unsuccessful party pays costs to the successful party. The Attorney-General sought costs on a 2B basis, amounting to $16,156, including disbursements. Fuller opposed this claim, arguing that he brought the proceedings in good faith and that the public interest and his personal hardship warranted a reduction or denial of costs. However, the court found that Fuller's financial situation did not excuse him from paying costs, as impecuniosity is not a valid reason to decline a costs award. The court further determined that Fuller's case lacked merit, reinforcing the need for a meaningful costs award against him.

The court concluded that Fuller should bear the full costs as sought by the Attorney-General. It rejected Fuller's arguments that his good faith or personal hardship should mitigate the costs liability, emphasising that costs follow the event and that financial hardship does not negate this principle. The court awarded the Attorney-General costs of $16,013 and disbursements of $143, totalling $16,156. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to the established principle that unsuccessful parties should bear the costs of litigation, particularly where the case lacks merit.

In summary, Fuller is ordered to pay the Attorney-General $16,156 in costs and disbursements, reflecting the court's adherence to the principle that the unsuccessful party should bear the costs of litigation. This decision highlights the importance of the principle that costs follow the event, even in cases where the unsuccessful party argues personal hardship or good faith in bringing the proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established