Hook v Callaghan Innovation - [2024] NZHC 3430

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2024-485-000243

[2024] NZHC 3430

BETWEEN
CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL HOOK

Appellant

AND

CALLAGHAN INNOVATION

Respondent

Hearing: (On the papers)

Counsel:

Appellant in person

C R Langstone for Respondent

Judgment:

18 November 2024

JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J

(Costs)

[1] In my substantive judgment I dismissed Mr Hook’s appeal against the decision of the District Court striking out his negligence claim against Callaghan Innovation (Callaghan).1

[2] Callaghan seeks indemnity costs against Mr Hook. Mr Hook submits that costs should lie where they fall.

[3] Callaghan’s claim for indemnity costs is in the sum of $34,495.50 (GST exclusive) and a disbursement for an airfare for counsel’s travel to Wellington for the hearing in the sum of $380.88 (GST exclusive). Callaghan initially claimed a GST inclusive sum but accepts that is inappropriate as it can recover GST. I note, however, that the costs ordered in the District Court were GST inclusive. Unless

1 Hook v Callaghan Innovation [2024] NZHC 2240 [Substantive judgment].

HOOK v CALLAGHAN INNOVATION [2024] NZHC 3430 [18 November 2024]

Callaghan’s GST position has changed since the District Court decision, this was clearly an error caused by counsel’s failure to direct the Court to a well-established legal principle of plain relevance. If it is correct that Callaghan’s GST position is unchanged, Callaghan should make an application to the District Court to recall and correct its costs decision.2

Legal principles

[4] Indemnity costs are governed by r 14.6(1)(b) of the High Court Rules 2016. In the leading case on indemnity costs of Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corp, the Court noted there are several categories of conduct in which indemnity costs have been awarded:3
We therefore endorse Goddard J’s adoption in Hedley v Kiwi Co-operative Dairies Ltd (2002) 16 PRNZ 694 at [11] (HC) of Sheppard J’s summary in Colgate v Cussons at [24]. While recognising that the categories in respect of which the discretion may be exercised are not closed (see r 14.6(4)(f)), it listed the following circumstances in which indemnity costs have been ordered:

(a)the making of allegations of fraud knowing them to be false and the making of irrelevant allegations of fraud;

(b)particular misconduct that causes loss of time to the court and to other parties;

(c)commencing or continuing proceedings for some ulterior motive;

(d)doing so in wilful disregard of known facts or clearly established law;

(e)making allegations which ought never to have been made or unduly prolonging a case by groundless contentions, summarised in French J’s “hopeless case” test.

[5] In terms of the “hopeless case” category, the Court of Appeal has explained that it is unnecessary that there be flagrant misconduct.4 The phrase “totally without merit” can be equated with “bound to fail” or “hopeless”. A conclusion that a case is hopeless is not one that can be based on “fine distinctions or complex reasoning”.5

2 Uhrle v R [2020] 1 NZLR 286, [202] NZSC 62.
3 Bradbury v Westpac…

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 Hook v Callaghan Innovation

Details

AGLC: Hook v Callaghan Innovation [2024] NZHC 3430
Case: [2024] NZHC 3430
Decision Date: 18 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Judge La Hood presided over an appeal brought by Christopher Russell Hook against the decision of the District Court to strike out his negligence claim against Callaghan Innovation. The appeal was dismissed in the substantive judgment, and Callaghan Innovation now seeks indemnity costs against Mr Hook. The legal issues before the court centered on the grounds for awarding indemnity costs, specifically whether Mr Hook's conduct warranted such costs under the categories listed in the High Court Rules 2016.

The court examined several factors to determine whether indemnity costs were appropriate. Firstly, it was established that Mr Hook's claim was hopeless and bound to fail, as it misapprehended the law of negligence. Additionally, Mr Hook's conduct included filing lengthy and detailed memoranda attempting to relitigate previously unsuccessful issues and making unfounded allegations of bias against the District Court Judge. These actions contributed to significant additional costs for Callaghan Innovation.

Based on these findings, Judge La Hood concluded that Mr Hook's conduct justified an award of indemnity costs. The court noted that while the amount claimed was $34,495.50, a reduction was necessary to account for errors in calculation, Mr Hook's self-representation, and the principle that scale costs should generally be two-thirds of the daily recovery rate. Ultimately, the court ordered Mr Hook to pay indemnity costs of $30,000 (GST exclusive) and disbursements of $380.88 (GST exclusive).

Orders