O'Keefe v Ratima

[2019] NZHC 3284

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CIV-2019-441-000043

[2019] NZHC 3284

UNDER

The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act

IN THE MATTER OF

an appeal against the decision of the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority on an application pursuant to section 127 for the renewal of an off-license in respect of

premises situated at 23 Swansea Road,

Flaxmere, Hastings known as “Flaxmere Liquor”.

BETWEEN

HENARE O’KEEFE

First Appellant

DESMA KEMP RATIMA
Second Appellant

AND

FLAXMERE (2008) LIQUOR LIMITED

Respondent

On the Papers
Judgment:	12 December 2019

JUDGMENT OF DOOGUE J

[1]                This judgment is to fix costs following my order striking out an application by the appellants to adduce further evidence.

[2]It follows my judgments of 31 October and 5 December 2019.

[3]                The respondent submits that indemnity costs are appropriate in accordance with r 14.6(4) of the High Court Rules 2016 because the appellants filed an application

O’KEEFE v FLAXMERE (2008) LIQUOR LIMITED [2019] NZHC 3284 [12 December 2019]

to adduce further evidence when that evidence was never in fact obtained and produced to the Court.

[4]                Counsel for the appellants’ submissions in response are ill conceived. It was never reasonable for the appellants to come to this Court making an application to adduce further evidence when that evidence was never obtained from the proposed deponents.

[5]                The appellants’ standing (as addressed in their counsel’s submissions at paragraphs 12 to 23) is irrelevant to whether the application should have been made or not. Their standing cannot be germane to a legal decision to make an erroneous application.

[6]                It is appropriate for costs to be awarded in favour of the respondent on an actual basis as sought in the sum of $8,194.15.

[7]                Those costs should be paid before any consideration will be given to the application for waiver of security for costs for the substantive hearing and the setting down of the substantive appeal.

Doogue J

Solicitors:

Phoenix Law, Wellington

Harkness Henry, Hamilton