Neil Martin Clarke v NZ Police

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 58/2007
[2007] NZSC 83

BETWEENNEIL MARTIN CLARKE

Applicant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE

First Respondent
ANDCOREY WATTS

Second Respondent
ANDCHUBB SECURITY LIMITED

Third Respondent

Court:Blanchard, Tipping and McGrath JJ
Counsel:J J McGuire for Applicant

M A Robertson for Second Respondent

Judgment:9 October 2007

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IS DISMISSED WITH COSTS OF $1,500 TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

REASONS
[1]       Mr Clarke filed an application for leave to appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal. That application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
[2]       The Court of Appeal made an award of costs of $750.00 against Mr Clarke in respect of his failed application. The present application to this Court relates solely to Mr Clarke’s wish to challenge that costs award.
[3]       His first proposed ground is that the costs were awarded to all three respondents, not just to the second respondent. That, it seems to us, could theoretically be an issue between the respondents but it cannot prejudice Mr Clarke. There is nothing to indicate that the Court of Appeal increased the award because it was made in favour of the three respondents.
[4]       The second proposed ground is that because the second respondent is being funded by the Police Association he should not have received any costs. That is an insupportable proposition. Costs are routinely awarded to successful litigants whose expenses are being met by a third party, such as an insurer or, as in this case, a trade or professional association with an interest in its members’ welfare. And, contrary to the third argument of Mr Clarke, the arrangements between the second respondent and the association in no way make the costs order an award in the nature of damages.
[5]       The criteria for leave have not been met.
Solicitors:
J J McGuire, Wellington for Applicant
Thomas Dewar Sziranyi Letts, Lower Hutt for Second Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was presented with an application for leave to appeal from Neil Martin Clarke, the applicant, against the New Zealand Police, the first respondent, Corey Watts, the second respondent, and Chubb Security Limited, the third respondent. The application stemmed from an earlier decision by the High Court, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Following this, the Court of Appeal made an award of costs of $750.00 against Mr Clarke, and he sought to challenge this decision in the Supreme Court. The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the criteria for leave to appeal had been met and if the costs awarded by the Court of Appeal were justified.

The Supreme Court examined two primary arguments presented by Mr Clarke. Firstly, he contended that the costs were awarded to all three respondents, not just the second respondent, which he claimed was an error. The Court, however, found this argument to be without merit as it did not prejudice Mr Clarke and there was no evidence to suggest that the award was increased because it was made in favor of multiple respondents. Secondly, Mr Clarke argued that because the second respondent was being funded by the Police Association, he should not have received any costs. This proposition was deemed insupportable by the Court, as it is standard practice to award costs to successful litigants whose expenses are covered by third parties, such as professional associations. Furthermore, the Court rejected Mr Clarke's argument that the funding arrangement made the costs order akin to an award of damages.

The Supreme Court concluded that the criteria for leave to appeal had not been met, and the application was dismissed with costs of $1,500 to the second respondent. The Court's decision was based on the lack of prejudice to Mr Clarke from the Court of Appeal's decision and the insupportable nature of his arguments regarding the costs awarded.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established