G S v Family Court at Manukau

[2022] NZHC 1408

NOTE: ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B, 11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE

https://www.justice.govt.nz/family/about/restriction-on-publishing-judgments/

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 182 OF THE FAMILY VIOLENCE ACT 2018, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B, 11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,

PLEASE SEE https:// judgments/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-001077

[2022] NZHC 1408

BETWEEN

G S

Applicant

AND

THE FAMILY COURT AT MANUKAU

First Respondent

L M

Second Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

Applicant self-represented

K Laurenson and C Tocher for first respondent L Soljan as counsel assisting

Judgment:

15 June 2022

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J [COSTS]

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 June 2022 at 4 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

G S v THE FAMILY COURT AT MANUKAU [2022] NZHC 1408 [15 June 2022]

[1]    On 24 March 2022, I issued a judgment which largely dismissed Mr S’ application for judicial review save in respect of two issues. I declined relief in respect of those issues as events had overtaken them. I noted in my judgment that I had not been addressed on costs and in particular, any matters arising under s 178 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 (the Act). I therefore reserved costs.

[2]    As an abiding party, the first respondent does not seek its own costs. However, counsel for the first respondent helpfully filed a memorandum dated 5 April 2022 to assist the Court with the relevant principles on the payment of costs for counsel assisting.

[3]The second respondent has not sought costs as she did not take an active role.

[4]Mr S has not responded to the memorandum dated 5 April 2022.

[5]    I have reflected on the factors relevant to whether an order ought to be made under s 178 of the Act directing how the costs of counsel assisting are to be met. These are the factors set out in Earthquake Commission v Insurance Council of New Zealand Inc.1

[6]    I have weighed the fact that counsel assisting was of great assistance to the court, the arguments advanced by Mr S were wide-ranging and that I found the case argued must be confined largely to its own facts rather than the broader public interest arguments advanced. Notwithstanding, I consider that in the circumstances of this case the usual course, whereby the costs of counsel assisting are met by the public purse, is appropriate.

[7]I order accordingly.

............................................................

Walker J

1      Earthquake Commission v Insurance Council of New Zealand Inc [2015] NZHC 457, (2015) 22 PRNZ 427 at [6].