Nikala Taylor v Christopher Jones

[2008] NZSC 93

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 88/2006
[2008] NZSC 93

BETWEENNIKALA JANICE TAYLOR

Applicant

ANDCHRISTOPHER DEAN JONES

Respondent

Court:Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath  and Anderson JJ

Counsel:W C Pyke for Applicant

T Sutcliffe for Respondent

Judgment:5 November 2008 

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT – APPLICATION FOR COSTS

The application for costs is dismissed.

REASONS

[1]       The present applicant, Ms Taylor, succeeded in her appeal concerning the issuance against her of a writ of habeas corpus on the application of the respondent, Mr Jones.[1]  She has applied for costs in this Court and in the Court of Appeal.

[1]      Jones v Skelton [2007] 2 NZLR 178 (NZSC).

[2]       Normally a successful appellant could expect to receive an award of costs against the unsuccessful respondent, especially where the respondent had initiated the proceeding.  This case is, however, unusual.  Mr Jones is the father of a child who was abducted and whom the police were at the relevant time unable to find.  Mr Jones had reason to believe that the person who had originally taken the child was Ms Taylor.  He was ultimately unsuccessful in his application for habeas corpus against her because, regardless of whether Ms Taylor had been involved in the abduction, it was plain that by the time Mr Jones’s application was heard in the High Court she no longer had custody or control of the child.

[3]       Happily, the child was found.  Ms Taylor was prosecuted.  She has now admitted her involvement in the abduction and entered a plea of guilty.

[4]       In these unusual circumstances it is entirely inappropriate that she should receive any award of costs against Mr Jones and her application for costs is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Swarbrick Dixon, Hamilton, for Applicant
Till Henderson King, Hamilton for Respondent