New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated) v Minister for Racing

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2012-485-2070 [2013] NZHC 827

UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 Part 1

IN THE MATTER OF the Racing Act 2003

BETWEEN NEW ZEALAND GREYHOUND RACING ASSOCIATION (INCORPORATED)
Plaintiff

ANDTHE MINISTER FOR RACING Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel: H Cull QC and N Levy for the Plaintiff
K Stephen and A Jacobs for the Defendant

Judgment: 19 April 2013

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J (Costs)

[1] I refer to my judgment delivered on 19 February 2013.[1] I have now received submissions on costs. The defendant complied with my direction that the submissions be confined to three pages.[2] The plaintiff, without explanation, did not. It is to be remembered that the costs regime is intended to be predictable and expeditious.[3] In the ordinary course brief submissions on costs confined to the
essential points are appropriate under that regime.

NEW ZEALAND GREYHOUND RACING ASSOCIATION (INCORPORATED) v THE MINISTER FOR RACING HC WN CIV-2012-485-2070 [19 April 2013]

[1] New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Inc) v Minister for Racing [2013] NZHC 245.

[2] At [76].

[3] High Court Rules, r 14.2(g).

[2] The essential point is that the parties have not been able to agree on costs because the defendant takes the view that category 2B costs are appropriate[4] whereas the plaintiff considers indemnity or increased costs should be ordered.[5]

[4] Rule 14.3.

[5] Rule 14.6.

[3] Although this case involved an issue of relevance to parties (the thoroughbred code and the harness code) other than those represented in the proceeding, that does not warrant either indemnity or increased costs in my view.[6] The greyhound code brought the proceeding because it had an interest in removing the chairperson because of his links with the thoroughbred code. That makes the case more similar to Whangamata Marina Society Inc v Attorney-General[7] than New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General (No 3)[8] and Auckland Council for Civil Liberties v Attorney-General.[9] The significance of the proceeding to the greyhound code, together with its wider significance for future appointments, is better reflected by the category to which the proceeding is appropriately assigned.

[6] The Court may order a party to pay increased costs if the proceeding is of general importance to persons other than just the parties and it was reasonably necessary for the party claiming costs to

bring it in their interests: High Court Rules, r 14.6(3)(c). The court may order indemnity costs if some other reason exists which justifies it: r 14.6(4)(f).

[7] Whangamata Marina Society Inc v Attorney-General (2006) 18 PRNZ 565 (HC) at [16].

[8] New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General (No 3) HC Wellington CP942/88, 28 April 1995.

[9] Auckland Council for Civil Liberties v Attorney-General HC Auckland CP452/95, 10 November 1993.

[4] Nor do I consider that indemnity or increased costs should be ordered because the defendant could have avoided the proceeding by accepting the plaintiff’s view and legal advice that the appointed chairperson was not independent.[10] The defendant obtained advice before making the appointment. He was not required to accept the plaintiff’s advice when he had advice that differed and when he was of the view, after an appropriate process searching for candidates, that his proposed
appointment was the best one and complied with the statutory criteria as he was

advised it to be.

[10] The court may order a party to pay increased costs if the party opposing costs has contributed unnecessarily to the time or expense of the proceeding by pursuing an argument that lacks merit or failing to accept a legal argument: High Court Rules, r 14.6(3)(b).

[5] I consider that category 3 is appropriate because I accept that the significance of the proceeding to the greyhound code was such that it was appropriately represented both by a Queen’s Counsel and an experienced second counsel. Band B is appropriate because the steps involved in the proceeding were such that a normal amount of time for those steps would be reasonable. There is to be an allowance for second counsel.

[6] Accordingly, category 3B costs are awarded.

Mallon J

Solicitors:
Kathy Ertel & Co, Wellington
Crown Law, Wellington

The New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated) brought a case against the Minister for Racing in the High Court of New Zealand. The dispute centred around the appointment of a chairperson and the plaintiff's assertion that the appointment was invalid due to the chairperson's links with the thoroughbred code. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate costs associated with the proceedings, given the disagreement between the parties on the matter.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to indemnity or increased costs, as it argued that the case had broader implications beyond the parties involved. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant could have avoided the proceedings by accepting their advice on the chairperson's independence, which led to the argument for indemnity or increased costs. The defendant, on the other hand, maintained that category 2B costs were appropriate, considering the significance of the case to the greyhound code and the thorough process undertaken in appointing the chairperson.

The court found that the case was more akin to Whangamata Marina Society Inc v Attorney-General, as it primarily concerned the interests of the greyhound code. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument for indemnity or increased costs, stating that the defendant had obtained independent advice and followed an appropriate process in appointing the chairperson. The court concluded that category 3B costs were appropriate, reflecting the significance of the case to the greyhound code and the reasonable time involved in the proceedings.

The court awarded category 3B costs to the plaintiff, recognising the importance of the case to the greyhound code while also considering the reasonable time spent on the proceedings. The defendant was not required to pay indemnity or increased costs as the plaintiff's argument lacked merit, and the defendant had followed an appropriate process in appointing the chairperson.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established