Heukels v District Court at Masterton HC Wellington CIV 2010-435-141

[2010] NZHC 2218

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV 2010-435-141

IN THE MATTER OF     an application for Judicial Review

BETWEEN  LEOPOLD ALEXANDER HEUKELS Plaintiff

ANDTHE DISTRICT COURT AT MASTERTON

First Defendant

ANDTHE NEW ZEALAND POLICE Second Defendant

Hearing:         On Papers

Counsel:J K W Blathwayt and J M Elliott for Plaintiff (First Defendant abides the decision of the Court) S E McKenzie for Second Defendant

Judgment:      10 December 2010

COSTS JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J

[1]      In  these  judicial  review  proceedings  Mr Heukels  attempted  to  judicially review a decision in the District Court to refuse to strike out an information and amend it so it appeared as a summary information.  I dismissed the judicial review proceedings finding that the proper course had been to amend the information to ensure  it  complied  with  an  information  pursuant  to  s 43(1)  of  the  Summary Proceedings Act 1957.

[2]      The respondent now seeks costs.  They say that costs should follow the event. It  was  a  case  of  average  complexity  and  2B  costs  are  sought.     Costs  and

disbursements total $8,348.82 on that basis.

LEOPOLD ALEXANDER HEUKELS V THE DISTRICT COURT AT MASTERTON AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2010-435-141  10 December 2010

[3]      The applicant submits that no costs should be ordered.   He says that the proceedings were clearly commenced in the wrong form and continued along the wrong path selected by the police.  There was, he says, a public interest in having the matter fully tested.  This was really a criminal matter and the only way in which the applicant could test these issues was by judicial review.  Essentially it was a form of an application to have the applicant discharged on the criminal charge he faced.

[4]      I see  no  reason  why the  respondent  should  not  have  costs  in  this  case. However, I accept in part the applicant’s submissions.   The original proceedings were only brought because of the failures by the New Zealand Police.  There is an aspect of this case that concerns the criminal law where ordinarily cost orders would not be made.  Finally, I agree with the respondent that costs and disbursements of

$8,348.82 would be disproportionate to the significance of the case.

[5]      In those circumstances I think a global approach to costs is appropriate.  The second respondent should have costs in the sum of $2,000 payable by the applicant,

plus disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

Solicitors:

J K W Blathwayt, Associate, WCM Legal, PO Box 49, Carterton 5743 email:  john[email protected]

S E McKenzie, Crown Law, PO Box 2858, Wellington 6140

email:  sara[email protected]

Ronald Young J