Fuller v Attorney-General

[2025] NZHC 1317

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].