Hill v Maori Trustee

[2016] NZHC 1072

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CIV-2015-454-39 [2016] NZHC 1072

UNDER

the District Courts Act 1947, ss 72(1), 75,

76(1)(a), 76(1)(b)(i) and (ii), 76(1)(c), Bill of Exchange Act 1908, s 10(2), High

Court Rules 2005 r 7.55(1), District Court Rules 2009, Crimes Act 1961, Judicature Act 1908, Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 14,

27, 28, 29, Animal Welfare Act, Magna Carta 1215, Human Rights Act 1993, Property Law Act 2007, Securities Act

1978, Personal Properties Act 1999, Interpretation Act 1979 and not limited to others supporting the intent of this application by appellant in accord with law or by lawful amendment

IN THE MATTER OF

judgment decision dated 23 February 2015 by District Court Palmerston North

CIV-2011-054-0533

BETWEEN

FREDERICK PIRIPI KINGI HILL Appellant

AND

MĀORI TRUSTEE Respondent

On papers
Judgment:	23 May 2016

JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J (Costs)

[1]      In my judgment dismissing the appeal and application for judicial review brought by Mr Hill in this proceeding, I ruled that the Māori Trustee was entitled to

costs.1

1      Hill v Māori Trustee [2016] NZHC 364 at [79].

HILL v MĀORI TRUSTEE [2016] NZHC 1072 [23 May 2016]

[2]      I invited memoranda, and although Mr Hill did not respond specifically on costs within the time limit specified, in dismissing a subsequent application by him for a stay of the effect of my judgment I indicated that I would grant him further time to respond to the application on behalf of the Māori Trustee for increased costs.

[3]      A document purporting to do that was filed by Mr Hill on 15 May 2016. From the terms of Mr Hill’s memorandum it is very difficult to discern any relevant grounds for opposition to the costs sought.  For instance, the first paragraph of his memorandum states:

The appellant states that the Court has through neglect ruled that the estate it is  purporting  to  charge  against  for  costs  incurred  by  New Zealand  law society member the Māori Trustee and agent Ms C Reuhman cannot be identified by registration or free and intelligent consent in the proceeding.

[4]      This is very clearly a proceeding in which the usual rule that costs should follow the event is appropriately applied.  The Māori Trustee has calculated the scale costs on a 2B basis at $8,288.   However, the memorandum filed on behalf of the Māori Trustee dated 24 April 2016 seeks increased costs on the basis that responding appropriately to Mr Hill’s various initiatives in the proceeding required a more than usual level of resources.  For instance, there were six case management conferences and an additional three memoranda filed in respect of them.

[5]      Having reviewed the history of the proceedings, in light of the District Court judgment and my own, I am satisfied that materially more than a usual level of resources were appropriately required from the Māori Trustee to deal with steps that appear to have included diversionary and delaying tactics by Mr Hill.   Ultimately, many of the points he sought to raise were completely untenable.

[6]      The Māori Trustee has sought an uplift of 50 per cent.   I consider that is justified.   I accordingly order costs in favour of the Māori Trustee in the sum of

$12,432.

Dobson J

Solicitors:

Māori Trustee, Wellington

Copy to:

F P K Hill