Guo v PricewaterhouseCoopers

[2022] NZHC 1117

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-000351

[2022] NZHC 1117

UNDER

The Human Rights Act The Privacy Act

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal in judicial review against a decision from the Human Rights Review Tribunal dismissing application for further discovery against the respondent in [2022] NZHRRT 6

BETWEEN

YAN GUO

Appellant

AND

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

Respondent

On the papers:	At Auckland
Judgment:	19 May 2022

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

[on Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 May 2022 at 4 pm pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors/Counsel:

Bell Gully, Auckland (T L Clarke)

Copy:
Y Guo, Mount Albert

GUO v PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS [2022] NZHC 1117 [19 May 2022]

[1]    On 26 April 2022 the appellant, Yan Guo, withdrew her appeal at the first case management conference.

[2]    When the appeal was called Ms Guo confirmed that she accepted that there was no jurisdiction for her appeal from the Human Rights Review Tribunal. Ms Guo’s decision had been precipitated by an application made by the respondent, PricewaterhouseCoopers (“PWC”) on the basis that s 123 of the Human Rights Act 1993 did not permit an appeal given the interlocutory nature of the decision at issue. PWC had previously advised Ms Guo of its position and invited her to withdraw her appeal but she declined to do so and this resulted in the application to strike out being filed.

[3]    At the time Ms Guo withdrew her appeal she sought to withdraw it on the basis that costs would not be awarded, but as I advised her in Court and confirmed in my Minute of 26 April 2022, such a course of action was not possible. Ms Guo nonetheless confirmed she wished to withdraw the appeal and a timetable for determination of costs was made.

[4]    PWC have now sought scale costs calculated on a 2B basis in the sum of $4,063 together with disbursements of $173.91, a total of $4,236.91.

[5]    Ms Guo opposes any award of costs on the basis that as a litigant in person she did not understand that she was not entitled to appeal and/or considered her appeal was “in judicial review”. She therefore seeks that no costs be awarded.

Discussion

[6]    Having considered the material filed by both parties I am left in no doubt that costs should be paid by Ms Guo, albeit in a slightly reduced sum to that sought by PWC.

[7]    As noted, after Ms Guo’s appeal was filed, PWC immediately brought it to her attention that there was no jurisdiction for the appeal and invited her to withdraw it at that point. In response Ms Guo robustly rejected the invitation and maintained her

position notwithstanding a follow up letter from PWC which encouraged her to take independent legal advice, and as a result PWC applied to strike out the appeal.

[8]    In the circumstances I have no doubt that the approach taken by PWC was appropriate and Ms Guo was given the chance to withdraw her appeal without incurring costs, but she declined to do so. Although Ms Guo did ultimately withdraw the appeal, by that time PWC had incurred the costs on the application and in respect of the first call of the appeal.

[9]    In addition, notwithstanding Ms Guo is self-represented, as PWC has noted she has previously filed judicial review proceedings separate from appeal proceedings.

[10]   Taking these various matters together I conclude that costs must follow the event and the withdrawal of the appeal means that PWC were the successful party.

[11]   There can likewise be no issue with the steps claimed by PWC in respect of the filing of interlocutory application, the preparation for the first case management conference including the filing of the memorandum, and attendance at the conference. I do however consider those steps are appropriately calculated on a 2A basis rather than a 2B basis, making a total of 1 day rather than 1.7 days at the standard rate of

$2,390. This makes the total amount of costs for which Ms Guo is liable $2,390.00, plus $173.91 in disbursements.

Decision

[12]   Ms Guo is to pay PWC costs in the sum of $2,390.00, together with disbursements in the sum of $173.91, a total of $2,563.91.

Powell J