Huffman v Christchurch District Court

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE NAME AND PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENT PURSUANT TO S 95A OF THE

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT 1986.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2024-409-192

[2025] NZHC 2163

BETWEEN
ROBERT CAMPBELL HUFFMAN

Applicant

AND

CHRISTCHURCH DISTRICT COURT

First Respondent

AND

G

Second Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

Applicant in person

Second Respondent in person

Judgment:

4 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 August 2025 at 11.30 am, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

HUFFMAN v G [2025] NZHC 2163 [4 August 2025]

Introduction

[1] Mr Huffman unsuccessfully claimed damages in the Tenancy Tribunal under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 from the company which operated a hostel where Mr Huffman was living. He subsequently appealed to the District Court, naming G (the director of the company which operated the hostel) as the respondent. That appeal was dismissed on 1 February 2024.

[2] He then appealed that decision to the High Court and also sought judicial review of the District Court decision. Both the appeal and the application for review were dismissed on 20 February 2025.1

[3]Costs on the application were reserved.

[4] G filed a costs memorandum on 23 June 2025. Mr Huffman was directed to file a response by 11 July 2025 but did not do so. The Registry followed up with Mr Huffman on 15 July 2025 and did not receive a response.

Costs sought by Mr G

[5] Mr G is a lay litigant. He is only seeking recovery of his disbursements. A successful lay litigant is entitled to reasonable disbursements in the discretion of the Court.2

[6] Mr G seeks costs of $4,872. He attaches receipts for legal fees in respect of both the Tenancy Tribunal matter ($2,365) and the High Court proceedings ($2,254). He explains that these fees were incurred for legal assistance in preparing for those two proceedings. He also claims disbursements, totalling $253, for the filing of statements of defence in the High Court proceedings.

[7] Sums paid to a solicitor for help preparing documents and preparing to appear and argue a case in person can be successfully claimed.3 However, it is only assistance

1      Huffman v G [2025] NZHC 232.
2      Re Collier (a bankrupt) 1996 2 NZLR 438 (CA).
3      Knight v Veterinary Council of New Zealand HC Wellington CIV-2007-485-1300, 31 July 2009 at [6]; and Working Capital Solutions Holdings Ltd v Pezaro [2014] NZHC 2480 at [15]–[20].

which relates to the High Court appeal and judicial review application which is claimable as a disbursement in these proceedings. I do not have jurisdiction to award costs for steps taken in the Tenancy Tribunal.

[8] Accordingly, the fees of $2,365 incurred in that forum are not claimable but the other invoice for $2,254 is. I am satisfied that this amount is reasonable, particularly in light of the fact G is making no other claim for costs.

[9] The cost of filing a statement of defence is a reasonable cost. However, it appears G filed a second statement of defence following a telephone conference where Lester AJ identified deficiencies in the first statement of defence. Accordingly, I only award the second filing fee of $143.

[10] Accordingly, I make a costs award in the second respondent’s favour in the sum of $2,397.

Copy to:
Mr Huffman
Mr G, Christchurch

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand considered a case where Mr Huffman sought to challenge the dismissal of his appeal to the Christchurch District Court, which had dismissed his damages claim under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Mr Huffman had initially failed in his claim for damages against the company operating a hostel where he resided. He then appealed to the District Court, naming G, the director of the company, as the respondent. The appeal was dismissed, leading Mr Huffman to further appeal to the High Court, where both his appeal and an application for judicial review were also dismissed. In the proceedings before the High Court, G, who is a lay litigant, sought recovery of his disbursements incurred in defending the appeal and judicial review application. The court was tasked with determining the reasonableness of the claimed costs and whether they were incurred in relation to the High Court proceedings.

The court had to decide whether G was entitled to recover the legal fees and disbursements he incurred in defending the appeal and judicial review application. The primary issue was whether the costs claimed were reasonable and related to the High Court proceedings. The court noted that while G was entitled to recover reasonable disbursements, it did not have jurisdiction to award costs for steps taken in the Tenancy Tribunal. It also had to determine if the fees claimed were reasonable and specifically related to the High Court appeal and judicial review application. Additionally, the court examined whether the disbursements claimed, such as the filing fees for statements of defence, were necessary and reasonable.

The court held that G was entitled to recover the legal fees and disbursements incurred in relation to the High Court proceedings. It found the fees of $2,254 related to the High Court proceedings to be reasonable and thus claimable. However, the fees of $2,365 incurred in the Tenancy Tribunal were not claimable as the court lacked jurisdiction over those proceedings. Regarding the disbursements, the court awarded only the second filing fee of $143 for a statement of defence, considering the first filing fee was unnecessary following a telephone conference. Therefore, the court awarded G costs in the sum of $2,397.

The court ordered that G was to be awarded costs in the sum of $2,397. The order was to be copied to both Mr Huffman and G.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established