Ministry of Justice v McGuire

[2021] NZHC 2813

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CIV-2018-454-66

[2021] NZHC 2813

BETWEEN

THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

Judgment Creditor

AND

JEREMY JAMES MCGUIRE

Judgment Debtor

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	S Kinsler and M Clarke-Parker for judgment creditor Judgment debtor in person
Judgment:	20 October 2021

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE JOHNSTON

[Costs]

[1]                 This costs judgment follows long running litigation between the Ministry of Justice on the one hand and Mr Jeremy McGuire on the other.

[2]                 No useful purpose will be served by a laborious description of the background. By mid-2019 the Ministry held judgments against Mr McGuire totalling $35,182.86. It had earlier initiated a bankruptcy process to enforce the same. The Ministry emailed Mr McGuire offering to settle for the payment of that amount on the basis that neither party would pursue costs. In an email dated 30 April 2021 Mr McGuire said that he had paid $35,079.74. That left a balance due of $103.12. The Ministry sensibly elected not to take matters any further. The indebtedness having been reduced to the point where it was de minimis, it discontinued the proceeding.

[3]Mr McGuire now seeks costs.

THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE v MCGUIRE [2021] NZHC 2813 [20 October 2021]

[4]                 Mr McGuire may be aggrieved by my reluctance to analyse the factual background in any more detail than that. Clearly, he has that background very much at his fingertips. Indeed, the detailed analysis of the background as set out in his memoranda of 4 August and 17 September 2021 is eloquent testament to this, and perhaps also to the extent to which a disproportionate amount of time and attention can very easily be expended on litigation.

[5]                 It is quite true that r 15.23 of the High Court Rules provides that in the generality of cases when a proceeding is discontinued (that is to say abandoned) by one party the other party or parties are entitled to claim costs up to the date of discontinuance. But that is a general rule and not an absolute one.  Costs are always  a matter for the Court’s discretion,1 which must, like all discretions, be exercised on a principled basis, having regard to these particular circumstances of the case.

[6]                 As I see it the important circumstances of this case come down to the points that I have emphasised. As at 30 April 2021 the Ministry was owed $35,182.86 by Mr McGuire. The Ministry offered to resolve all matters for that amount and said it would not seek costs. Mr McGuire paid all but $103.12 of that amount. The Ministry treated that as an end of the matter and discontinued.

[7]                 In my assessment, Mr McGuire is not entitled to costs. I accept the Ministry’s submission that if Mr McGuire were correct, the Ministry would be incentivised to pursue the small residual debt to avoid adverse costs. That of course would be an inefficient use of the parties’ resources.

[8]                 I have no hesitation in concluding that in the circumstances of this case the proper course is for the Court to decline to make any costs order in favour of either party.

Associate Judge Johnston

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell, Wellington for judgment creditor

1      High Court Rules 2016, r 14.1.