Hirstich v Family Court at Manukau

[2013] NZHC 1615

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-6508 [2013] NZHC 1615

UNDER  the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

IN THE MATTER OF       an application for judicial review

BETWEEN  MAVIS JILLIAN HIRSTICH Applicant

ANDTHE FAMILY COURT AT MANUKAU First Respondent

SELWYN KUPA KAHOTEA Second Respondent

Hearing:                   On the Papers

Counsel:                  I T F Hikaka and S L Jackson for Applicant

Second Respondent in Person

Judgment:                1 July 2013

COSTS JUDGMENT OF COOPER J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Cooper on

1 July 2013 at 10.00 a.m., pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:

Solicitors:

Lee Salmon Long, Auckland

HIRSTICH v THE FAMILY COURT AT MANUKAU [2013] NZHC 1615 [1 July 2013]

[1]      In my judgment of 3 May 2013 I dismissed this application for review and noted that as Mr Kahotea had appeared on his own behalf that no issue as to costs could properly arise.  I, however, reserved leave for him to file a memorandum and he has now done so.

[2]      In his memorandum he essentially seeks reimbursement of certain expenses that he has sustained. The total claimed is $807.56.

[3]      The items  on  which  he  has  claimed include travel,  parking,  a road  toll, postage, some incidentals, the filing fee, and stationery.   The most significant component of the expenses claim is $425.27 which is sought in respect of one day’s holiday leave.

[4]      In response counsel for the applicant have opposed the claim in respect of holiday leave, and an item for food on the day of the hearing (the sum of $10.30). They also point out a mistake made in respect of the cost of travel and complain that a sum claimed for stationery ($8.95) should not be awarded because it has not been particularised.

[5]      It seems that counsel for the applicant are correct insofar as the item for travel is concerned.   I also accept that it is inappropriate for Mr Kahotea to be reimbursed in respect of the costs of “holiday leave”. Attendance at the Court cannot result in compensation for time away from work.  Nor is the claim for lunch a proper one.

[6]      Although I accept the stationery claim has not been particularised, I have no reason to doubt that he is likely to have incurred expenses in that respect and it would be descending to the trivial to reject that claim.

[7]      In the end, I direct that costs of $402.47 are payable by Ms Hirstich to Mr

Kahotea in respect of his expenses.

[8]      That sum becomes due and payable upon delivery of this judgment.