O'Neill v Bridgman

[2019] NZHC 1912

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2018-485-502

[2019] NZHC 1912

UNDER

the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

IN THE MATTER

of an application for judicial review

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL

Applicant

AND

ANDREW BRIDGMAN

First Respondent

TANIA OTT
Second Respondent

CARL CRAFAR

Third Respondent

On the papers

Counsel:

Applicant in Person

A Todd and J Watson for Respondents

Judgment:

7 August 2019

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J (COSTS)

[1]                 By my judgment of 1 May 2019, I struck out the applicant’s statement of claim and dismissed his application for judicial review.1 I awarded costs to the respondents on a 2B basis.2

1      O’Neill v Bridgman [2019] NZHC 944.

2 At [56].

O’NEILL v BRIDGMAN [2019] NZHC 1912 [7 August 2019]

[2]                 The respondents have now filed a memorandum as to costs. Mr O’Neill was given the opportunity to respond. His response, dated 10 July 2019, did not directly address the issue as to costs but contained wide-ranging complaints and allegations that are not relevant to costs.

[3]                 The respondents seek an award of costs in the sum of $15,275.50 and disbursements of $690.43 as set out in the schedule to their memorandum as to costs dated 31 May 2019. They seek:

(a)the usual costs in filing and preparing for an interlocutory hearing, as well as appearances at two case management conferences (steps 13, 22, 24, 25, 26 and 29);3

(b)to recover costs for the filing of memoranda for the three case management conferences/mention hearings that occurred, but on a band A basis only, as a comparatively small amount of time is considered reasonable for those particular steps (step 11);

(c)to  recover  costs  for   filing   their   statement   of   defence   (dated 24 September 2018),  given  this  was  filed  after  an  invitation  to  Mr O’Neill to re-plead (which had not been answered by that point) and in the expectation the matter could proceed without the necessity for a strike-out application. However, at the case management conference on 8 October 2018, as  noted  in  my Minute,4  it became  clear that  Mr O’Neill’s claim was wider than the respondents had understood (as pleaded in their statement of defence). Following Mr O’Neill’s clarification of the claim in an “addendum” dated 21 October 2019, the respondents duly applied for strike-out given the wider scope of the claim (step 2); and

(d)reasonable disbursements for courier fees, filing fees and photocopying.

3      High Court Rules 2016, sch 3.

4      O’Neill v Bridgman HC Wellington CIV-2018-485-502, 9 October 2018.

[4]                 Mr O’Neill’s application for judicial review was dismissed in its entirety.       I have already awarded the respondents costs on a 2B basis. In respect of memoranda for three case management conferences, they responsibly seek costs only on a band A basis. The only issue is whether the respondents should recover costs in connection with their statement of defence. In the circumstances as set out above, it is reasonable for the respondents to recover the costs of commencing their defence (step 2).

[5]For these reasons, costs as sought are awarded to the respondents.

Thomas J

Solicitors:
Crown Law, Wellington