Haden v Wells - [2013] NZHC 3421

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-2890 [2013] NZHC 3421

BETWEEN GRACE HADEN Appellant

AND

NEIL EDWARD WELLS First Respondent

WINIFRED NORIEN HOADLEY Second Respondent

GRAEME JOHN COUTTS Third Respondent

Hearing: (On the papers)

Appearances:

Appellant in person
DJ Neutze for Respondents

Judgment:

17 December 2013

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J (Costs)

Solicitors: Appellant in person
Brookfields (Auckland) for Respondents

HADEN v WELLS [2013] NZHC 3421 [17 December 2013]

Introduction

[1] On 22 October 2013 I delivered my judgment in this matter finding in favour of the respondents.1 I invited memoranda as to costs. The respondents seek increased costs and the appellant opposes this.

Background

[2] My judgment decided an appeal against a decision of Judge BA Gibson in the

District Court at Auckland delivered on 10 May 2013.

[3] I set out in my judgment the history of litigation between the appellant and the respondents. There is no need to repeat that history here. I mention it because it is relevant to the decision I make on costs.

[4] The appellant had failed in her litigation against the respondents. She had exhausted every possible step available to her. Nevertheless, she persisted. The case she brought in the District Court, which Judge Gibson struck out, alleged that the original judgment made against her in the District Court was procured by fraud. If a judgment has been procured by fraud then it can be set aside even if the options for appeal have been exercised. This is to prevent a party benefiting from an abuse by fraud of the process of the Court. It is a narrow exception to the principle of finality of judgments.

[5] The appellant pleaded that she had acquired recently documents which raise at least a prima facie case of operative fraud. Judge Gibson disagreed that they did and struck out her claim.

[6] In the appeal before me, the appellant took issue with every aspect of Judge Gibson’s decision. In effect, the appellant re-argued her case. The appellant did not focus on the new evidence but repeated all of the arguments she had made in other Courts going to her affirmative defences to the proceeding first brought against her
by the respondents.

1 Haden v Wells & Ors [2013] NZHC 2753.

[7] The chief – and really only – new document of significance was an audit of an organisation associated with the respondents dated 20 July 2009 and carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) Assurance and Risk Strategy – Performance Group. That document goes nowhere close to raising the spectre of fraud.

Discussion

[8] I start by observing that the costs regime in the High Court Rules is based on the principles that costs should be readily ascertainable and consistently awarded. The costs regime does not operate to reimburse to the successful party their actual costs.

[9] In every case, there is a winner and a loser. Losing badly or comprehensively is not a ground for being required to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Haden v Wells

Details

AGLC: Haden v Wells [2013] NZHC 3421
Case: [2013] NZHC 3421
Decision Date: 17 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Haden v Wells involved Grace Haden, the appellant, who was appealing a decision from the District Court. The respondents were Neil Edward Wells, Winifred Norien Hoadley, and Graeme John Coutts. The central issue in the case was whether the appellant had successfully demonstrated that the judgments against her were obtained through fraud, thereby justifying their nullification despite the exhaustion of all other appeal options. The High Court, upon reviewing the appeal, found that the appellant’s claims were without merit and constituted an abuse of process. The court held that the appellant’s case was frivolous and lacked any legal or factual basis, leading to the conclusion that the appeal was entirely without foundation.

The legal issues before the court centered on the appellant's assertion that the prior judgments against her were obtained through fraud, and whether this constituted a sufficient ground for the nullification of those judgments. The court examined the merits of the appeal and whether the new evidence presented by the appellant could substantiate her claims of fraud. The court found that the new evidence did not support the appellant’s claims and that her continued pursuit of the case, despite its lack of merit, warranted an increase in the costs awarded to the respondents. The court's decision hinged on the principle that costs should reflect the realities of the proceedings, and in this case, the appellant's persistent and meritless litigation warranted an increase beyond the standard scale costs.

The court, Brewer J, granted the respondents' application for increased costs, reflecting the unnecessary and frivolous nature of the appeal. The court held that the respondents should not be burdened with the expense of defending against the appellant's baseless claims. The increase in costs from $10,049.50 to $15,074.25 was justified under the rules governing costs in the High Court, which allow for increased costs when a party takes or pursues an unnecessary step or argument that lacks merit. The court emphasized that the respondents had acted with restraint in their application for increased costs, and the appellant's conduct warranted a significant uplift in the costs awarded.

Orders