McGuire v Manawatu Standards Committee

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CIV-2015-454-13 [2015] NZHC 2708

UNDER

the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

AND

Part 30 of the High Court Rules

BETWEEN

JEREMY JAMES MCGUIRE Plaintiff

AND

MANAWATU STANDARDS COMMITTEE

Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	Plaintiff in person P N Collins and M F Fogarty for Defendant
Judgment:	4 November 2015

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J (Costs)

I direct that the delivery time of this judgment is

12 pm on the 4th day of November 2015

MCGUIRE v MANAWATU STANDARDS COMMITTEE [2015] NZHC 2708 [4 November 2015]

Introduction

[1]      This judgment sets out the costs Mr McGuire is entitled to receive following a judgment of Kós J delivered on 1 September 2015.1

Background

[2]      Mr McGuire is a lawyer practising in Palmerston North.  He was the subject of a complaint about fees that was heard by the Manawatu Standards Committee (the Committee).   The Committee upheld the complaint, reduced the fees charged by Mr McGuire and censured him.

[3]      Mr McGuire issued judicial review proceedings on the grounds that one of the Committee members was biased and that the Committee had failed to follow proper procedure.   Mr McGuire also sought damages.   Ultimately the Committee accepted it had erred and acknowledged its decision had to be set aside.

[4]      On 1 September Kós J quashed the Committee’s decision and directed the complaint be reconsidered by a committee made up of different members.   As to costs, Kós J said:2

Mr McGuire is entitled to costs on a category 2 band B basis.  If these cannot be  agreed,  brief  memoranda  may  be  submitted.    I  note,  however,  that Mr McGuire’s expectation as to costs must reflect the fact that from at least the time of filing of the further amended statement of defence on 17 June

2015, the defendant was offering no contest to the judicial review claim

(other than as to liability for damages).

[5]      Mr McGuire has sought costs in the sum of $29,659 plus disbursements.  The

Committee says Mr McGuire is entitled to no more than $12,537 plus disbursements. [6]      The dispute between the parties can be distilled to three key matters:

(a)      the appropriate daily recovery rate;

1      McGuire v Manawatu Standards Committee [2015] NZHC 2100.

2 At [42].

(b)      whether Mr McGuire is entitled to costs for events after 17 June 2015;

and

(c)       whether costs can be claimed for some events.

The appropriate daily recovery rate

[7]      Mr McGuire’s claim for costs is based on the daily recovery rate prescribed in sch 2 of the High Court Rules.  The daily recovery rate prescribed in those rules increased with effect from 1 July 2015.   The increase for category 2 matters was from $1,990 to $2,230 per day.   Mr McGuire’s calculations are based on the new rate.

[8]      In my assessment, Mr McGuire is entitled to costs calculated on the daily rate in force at the time the events in question occurred.3     Thus, for events prior to

1 July 2015 the daily…