Murray v Police

[2013] NZHC 2079

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2013-404-001263 [2013] NZHC 2079

UNDER  the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and Part VII of the High Court Rules and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 2008 and common law

IN THE MATTER             of an application for non-party disclosure pursuant to the Criminal Disclosure Act

2008

BETWEEN  DAVINA VALERIE MURRAY Applicant

ANDTHE NEW ZEALAND POLICE First Respondent

Contd…/…

Hearing:                   (on the papers) Appearances:  Applicant in Person

A Longdill for the First Respondent C Griffin for the Second Respondent A Drake for the Third Respondent

C Hirschfeld as Amicus Curiae

Judgment:                15 August 2013

[COSTS] JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie on 15 August 2013 at 4.00 pm

Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:

MURRAY v POLICE & ORS [2013] NZHC 2079 [15 August 2013]

ANDTHE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Second Respondent

SERCO

Third Respondent

THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND

Fourth Respondent

[1]      I refer to my oral judgment dated 13 June 2013.  I dismissed Ms Murray’s application to review two decisions made by Judge R Collins in the District Court at Auckland.  I held that the respondents were entitled to costs, and directed the parties to file memoranda in that regard.

[2]      I have now received memoranda from all parties.

[3]      The first respondent, the New Zealand Police, in written submissions filed for the   judicial   review   hearing,   sought   indemnity   costs.      In   its   more   recent memorandum, it notes that 2B costs in its case total $17,213.50, and that this amount exceeds its actual costs.  It seeks a costs order in the sum of $14,652 (exclusive of GST), plus disbursements, namely a filing fee of $108.80.

[4]      The second respondent notes that its actual costs in resisting the application for judicial review totalled $21,131.30, inclusive of GST and disbursements in the sum of $1,251.04.

[5]      The third respondent says that its actual costs in resisting the judicial review application totalled $42,269.30, inclusive of GST and disbursements.   It seeks an order for indemnity costs in its favour, or in the alternative, costs on a 2C basis totalling $35,331.80.

[6]      Ms Murray refers to r 14.1 of the High Court Rules.  She notes that she was adjudicated bankrupt on 31 October 2012, that filing fees were waived, and that the respondents did not seek security for costs from her at any stage prior to the hearing. She submits that the hearing was in the public interest and that the Court should depart from the normal rule that costs follow the event.  She requests that the Court should order that the costs lie where they fall.

[7]      I am not persuaded by Ms Murray’s submissions.  There was nothing in the application which was in the public interest.   Ms Murray was simply seeking to challenge orders made by Judge Collins, which affected her alone, and which had no wider public interest.

[8]      Generally,  costs  follow  the event  —  r 14.2(a)  —  and  in  my view,  it  is appropriate that they should do so in this case.

[9]      I am satisfied that  it is appropriate to  assess  costs on a 2B basis.   The proceedings were not particularly complicated, but I accept that they nevertheless required counsel of skill and experience in judicial review proceedings, and that a normal amount of time, reasonable in the circumstances, was required for each step taken.

[10]     In the case of the first respondent, costs calculated on a 2B basis amount to

$17,213.50.   In the case of the second and third respondents, costs on a 2B basis amount to $21,193.50, and $17,114 respectively.

[11]     The first respondent’s actual costs are less than the costs calculated on a 2B basis.  Ms Longdill for the first respondent properly accepts that any award of costs in favour of her client should not exceed its actual costs  incurred — r 14.2(f). Accordingly, I award costs against Ms Murray and in favour of the first respondent of $14,652, plus the filing fee incurred, namely $108.80.

[12]     Similarly, the second respondent is awarded its actual costs of $21,131.30, plus the disbursements of $1,251.04 incurred by it.

[13]     The  third  respondent  seeks  indemnity  costs.    I  am  not  persuaded  that indemnity costs are appropriate.   I am, however, persuaded that increased costs should be ordered under r 14.6(3)(b).  Ms Murray contributed unnecessarily to the time  and  expense  of  the  proceedings.    She  failed  to  comply  with  the  rules  in preparing and filing her statement of claim.   She failed to comply with various directions of the Court and timetables put in place by it.   Her arguments lacked merit.

[14]     In my view, it is appropriate to increase the costs awarded in favour of the third respondent by 50 percent over and above costs calculated on a 2B basis.   It

follows  that  the  third  respondent  is  entitled  to  costs  of  $25,671,  plus  its

disbursements of $108.80.  I award costs in its favour.

Wylie J