Gavigan v Disputes Tribunal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2024-419-0353

[2025] NZHC 3512

UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

BETWEEN

ANTHONY JOHN GAVIGAN

Applicant

AND

DISPUTES TRIBUNAL, DISTRICT COURT, HAMILTON

First respondent

GILLOVIC MANAGEMENT LIMITED

Second respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

Applicant in person

A J Nolan for second respondent

Date of judgment:

19 November 2025

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 November 2025 at 3.30pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Nolan & Lu Lawyers, Hamilton Crown Law, Wellington

Copy to:
Applicant

GAVIGAN v DISPUTES TRIBUNAL - Costs [2025] NZHC 3512 [19 November 2025]

[1] My 25 September 2025 judgment dismissed Mr Gavigan’s application for judicial review of a Disputes Tribunal decision.1

[2] As the successful party, Gillovic Management Limited seeks $9,840.45 in 2B costs and disbursements. Contending “[t]he issues were technical and novel and arose during application of special Covid regulations under the Companies Act 1993”, and the costs sought disproportionate to what was in dispute, Mr Gavigan submits expenses should be borne by the party incurring them, having regard for what he alleges was Gillovic Management’s “abuse of process” in prosecuting its claim in the Disputes Tribunal.

[3] The ‘abuse’ alleged by Mr Gavigan plainly was not accepted by the Disputes Tribunal.2 “All matters [relating to costs] are at the discretion of the court”,3 but usually for determination in accordance with general principle. I see no reason here to divert from the general principles “the party who fails with respect to a proceeding or an interlocutory application should pay costs to the party who succeeds”,4 and “so far as possible the determination of costs should be predictable and expeditious”.5

[4] I order Mr Gavigan pay Gillovic Management Limited $9,840.45 in costs and disbursements.

—Jagose J

1      Gavigan v Disputes Tribunal [2025] NZHC 2791 at [15].
2 At [13].
3      High Court Rules 2016, r 14.1(1).
4      Rule 14.2(1)(a).
5      Rule 14.2(1)(g).

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Gavigan v Disputes Tribunal, the applicant, Anthony John Gavigan, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Disputes Tribunal. The first respondent was the Disputes Tribunal, and the second respondent was Gillovic Management Limited. The case centred around the applicant's contention that the Disputes Tribunal had erred in its handling of a case under special Covid regulations as applied under the Companies Act 1993. The applicant had previously unsuccessfully sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision, which was dismissed by the court in a prior judgment.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant should be required to pay the costs and disbursements incurred by Gillovic Management Limited, as the successful party in the judicial review application. The applicant argued that the costs should be borne by the party incurring them, as he alleged that Gillovic Management Limited had abused the process in prosecuting its claim in the Disputes Tribunal. The court needed to determine if the general principles of costs allocation applied, or if there were exceptional circumstances that warranted a deviation from these principles.

The court held that the general principles of costs allocation applied, and there were no exceptional circumstances to deviate from these principles. The court noted that the Disputes Tribunal had already found no abuse of process on the part of Gillovic Management Limited. The court emphasised that, generally, the party who fails in a proceeding or an interlocutory application should pay costs to the party who succeeds, and that the determination of costs should be predictable and expeditious. Therefore, the court ordered that the applicant, Mr Gavigan, should pay Gillovic Management Limited $9,840.45 in costs and disbursements.

In summary, the court upheld the general principles of costs allocation and ordered the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the successful party, Gillovic Management Limited.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established