Hall v Attorney-General - [2013] NZHC 3388

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2006-404-003321 [2013] NZHC 3388

BETWEEN JOHN HALLIDAY HALL Plaintiff

ANDTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Defendant

Hearing: 21 October 2013 [On the Papers]

Counsel: A H J Commons for the Plaintiff
G Gardner for the Defendant

Judgment: 17 December 2013

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J [Re Costs]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Duffy on 17 December 2013 at 4.00 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Counsel: A H J Commons, Auckland

Solicitors: Crown Law, Wellington

HALL v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2013] NZHC 3388 [17 December 2013]

[1] The plaintiff, John Hall, is the former owner of land (Hall West) that was acquired by the Crown under the Public Works Act 1981 (the Act) as part of the works to re-align the Albany to Puhoi section of the State Highway 1 route north.

[2] In a judgment delivered on 21 December 2012, I found that as at 22 April

2003, Hall West was surplus to the Crown’s requirements and the Crown was required to offer to sell Hall West back to Mr Hall in accordance with s 40 of the Act at the value of the land at that time.

[3] The Crown had argued that:

(a) Hall West was not surplus to its requirements;

(b) It was not obliged to offer Hall West back to Mr Hall; and

(c) Hall West had been exempted from the offer-back requirements by the Chief Executive of Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) pursuant to s 40(2).

I rejected those arguments.

[4] Mr Hall now seeks an award of costs in accordance with the general principle that costs follow the event. He also seeks an award that is above scale costs. At [18] of the substantive judgment (see Hall v Attorney-General [2012] NZHC 3615), I referred to how Mr Hall had given Eastwood Farms Limited (Eastwood) a power of attorney to conduct this litigation. Whilst Eastwood may be making the decisions, the litigation is that of Mr Hall. Accordingly, he is the person at whom the judgment is directed, so I shall refer to the plaintiff as Mr Hall throughout this judgment.

[5] The standard categorisation of costs in this Court is category 2B. Costs on this basis work out at $79,202. The Crown has not challenged this calculation, so I see no reason not to accept it. Mr Hall also seeks disbursements of $33,410. These are for filing fees, setting down fees and hearing fees. I am satisfied that the disbursements sought are reasonable and so I find he is entitled to $33,410 for disbursements. Costs at category 2B and disbursements come to a total of $112,612.

[6] I now turn to deal with Mr Hall’s request for an award of costs above the

standard scale. Mr Hall seeks an award of increased costs under rr 14.6(3)(a),

14.6.3(b) and 14.6(3)(c).

[7] The approach for determining increased costs is set out in Holdfast NZ Ltd v Selleys Pty Ltd (2005) 17 PRNZ…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hall v Attorney-General and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NZHC 3388
Decision Date: 17 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hall v Attorney-General, Justice Duffy considered the costs application brought by the plaintiff, Mr Hall, following a substantive judgment that had found in his favour. The substantive case concerned a dispute over the Crown’s acquisition of land under the Public Works Act 1981, and Mr Hall’s entitlement to have the land offered back to him once it was no longer required by the Crown. The court had found that the land was surplus to the Crown’s requirements and that the Crown was required to offer to sell it back to Mr Hall. The Crown had opposed Mr Hall’s costs application, contending that his refusal of a settlement offer made by the Crown should render him ineligible for a costs award. The Crown also argued that it was entitled to a refusal or reduction of costs on the basis that Mr Hall had failed, without reasonable justification, to accept its offer of settlement. In assessing the costs application, the court considered the complexity of the proceedings, the conduct of the parties in relation to the settlement offer, and the importance of the proceedings. The court found that the proceedings were complex and that the Crown had not acted reasonably in defending the case. The court rejected the Crown’s argument that the settlement offer constituted a better price than that which followed from the judgment, and found that Mr Hall was entitled to an increased award of costs. The court awarded Mr Hall increased costs of $158,938.90 and disbursements of $33,410, bringing the total sum to $192,348.90.

Orders