Lowrie v Hutt City Te Awa Kairangi

In the case of Lowrie v Hutt City Te Awa Kairangi, the plaintiff, Peter Edwin William Lowrie, sought a judicial review and damages under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act against Hutt City Te Awa Kairangi. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had breached his rights by refusing him entry to the Hutt City Community Centre. The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the plaintiff's conduct constituted exceptional circumstances warranting an order for costs against him, despite his status as a legally aided person. This determination hinged on whether any of the circumstances outlined in section 45(3) of the Legal Services Act 2011 applied.

The court found that there were exceptional circumstances as defined by the Act. The plaintiff's conduct was deemed unreasonable given the significant divergence between his evidence and that of the defendant's witnesses, and the lack of corroboration of his claims. Additionally, the plaintiff admitted during cross-examination that he intended to make the proceedings as costly as possible for the defendant. The court concluded that the plaintiff's use of legal aid should not protect him from the consequences of his conduct, which was considered to be quite out of the ordinary. Despite the plaintiff's limited means, the court ordered him to pay a nominal amount of $500 towards the defendant's costs, calculated on a 2B basis at $29,547.

The court's decision highlighted the importance of balancing the objective of promoting access to justice with the potential misuse of legal aid funding. It underscored that the grant of legal aid does not exempt a party from costs when their conduct is found to be unreasonable and exceptional. The final orders confirmed that while the plaintiff would have been liable for the full costs had section 45 of the Act not applied, his limited means necessitated a nominal personal costs order of $500.