McConnor v New Zealand Law Society

[2025] NZHC 2311

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-001224

[2025] NZHC 2311

BETWEEN

JAMES MCCONNOR

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY

Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

Appellant in Person

P Collins for the Respondentt

Judgment:

14 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 August 2025 at 4 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel:
P Collins, Barrister, Auckland

Copy to:
J McConnor, Auckland

MCCONNOR v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2025] NZHC 2311 [14 August 2025]

[1]                 This costs judgment follows this Court’s dismissal of Mr McConnor’s appeal and application for leave to appeal further to the Court of Appeal.

[2]                 In this Court’s substantive judgment, 2B costs were awarded to the respondent. The quantum appears to be accurately calculated by reference to the High Court costs schedule. The quantum is not contested by Mr McConnor although he has expressly recorded that his position is “without prejudice to the possibility of a further appeal”.

[3]                 Having successfully opposed Mr McConnor’s application for leave to appeal, the respondent is also entitled to costs in accordance with the High Court Rules. This entitlement is regardless of the right to seek leave to appeal directly from the Court of Appeal. The respondent’s notice of opposition and affidavit in opposition specifically sought costs. I did not however mention costs in my judgment declining leave, nor did I expressly reserve costs. This was a slip. There is a clear entitlement to costs on the part of the respondent.

[4]                 The respondent seeks costs on a 2B basis at the same level as an interlocutory application under r 20.22(4). The quantum claimed is $5,086 inclusive of disbursements.

[5]                 Mr McConnor has filed a memorandum opposing “the Respondent’s additional request for a separate enforceable judgment for costs”. He submits that it is not appropriate to obtain a standalone judgment for such costs which would have the purpose of elevating an incidental costs order into an independently enforceable debt, divorced from the substantive decisions under appeal.

[6]                 I do not accept that submission. Costs ordinarily follow the event. As noted, the respondent is entitled to costs in respect of its successful opposition to the application for leave. If the Court of Appeal grants leave to appeal and the appeal is ultimately successful, any costs orders are open to being reversed by the appellate court but that is not a reason to decline an award of costs or to remedy the omission to determine costs which in theory, could justify recall of the leave judgment.

[7]                 However, while 2B costs are claimed, I consider there was a lesser amount of work involved in preparation of the opposition to the leave application because the submission largely duplicated the opposition to the appeal. For that reason, I make orders for costs against Mr McConnor in favour of the respondent as follows:

(a)Costs and disbursements of $12,732 in respect of his unsuccessful appeal; and

(b)50 per cent of 2B costs (based on the schedule applying to interlocutory applications), and disbursements, in respect of the leave application being the sum of $2,608.

............................................................

Walker J