Meenken v Attorney-General

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2014-485-11456 [2015] NZHC 412

BETWEEN
DIEDERIK MARTEN MEENKEN

Applicant

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL Respondent

In Chambers: On papers

Judgment:

10 March 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS (Costs)

[1] Mr Meenken has discontinued his proceeding, some two weeks ahead of the hearing of an application to strike it out. The respondent now seeks costs on a category 1 band B basis.

[2] Mr Meenken apologises to the Court, and to the respondent, for filing “a poor application”. He accepts it was “badly done”. He says he is sorry, and asks that the Court forgive his action in wasting its and the respondent’s time.

[3] Forgiveness will be facilitated here by the ordinary application of r 15.23. The presumption that a discontinuing plaintiff must pay costs has not been displaced.

Result

[4] Costs as sought.

Stephen Kós J

Solicitor: Crown Law, Wellington for Respondent
And to: Applicant in person

MEENKEN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2015] NZHC 412 [10 March 2015]

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Diederik Marten Meenken sought legal action against the Attorney-General, but discontinued the proceedings before the scheduled hearing. The Attorney-General applied for costs on a category 1 band B basis due to Mr Meenken's poor application. Mr Meenken apologised for his actions and asked the Court to forgive him for wasting time. Justice Kós acknowledged Mr Meenken's apology but ruled that the presumption that a discontinuing plaintiff must pay costs has not been displaced.

The court needed to determine whether the discontinuing plaintiff should pay costs and, if so, how much. It considered the quality of the application and the impact on the respondent. The court also had to assess the appropriate level of costs under the rules for the specific circumstances of the case.

The court decided that Mr Meenken's application was poorly done, and he had wasted the Court's and the respondent's time. The ordinary application of rule 15.23 would be sufficient to facilitate forgiveness. The presumption that a discontinuing plaintiff must pay costs has not been displaced, so Mr Meenken must pay the costs as sought by the Attorney-General.

The court awarded costs as sought by the Attorney-General. The decision was based on the poor quality of the application and the need to uphold the presumption that a discontinuing plaintiff should pay costs. The court also considered Mr Meenken's apology and request for forgiveness, but ultimately ruled that the application of rule 15.23 was appropriate in this case.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established