P v F

[2014] NZHC 811

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV 2013-485-680 [2014] NZHC 811

BETWEEN

P

Plaintiff

AND

F Defendant

Hearing:	On papers
Counsel:	H J P Wilson and A M Hall for Plaintiff A C Challis and H K Harkess for Defendant
Judgment:	16 April 2014

COSTS JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J

[1]      In these proceedings I had to decide whether the plaintiff was an aggrieved person under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act arising from the birth of his child.   I concluded that he was not and that as a result proceedings which he intended to bring before the Human Rights Review Tribunal could not have succeeded.  As a result in these proceedings, where he sued his lawyer for failing to file an appeal within time, he could not have succeeded.

[2]      The defendant now seeks 2B costs.   The amount is $20,087.33 including costs. There is no challenge to the assessment of 2B as a proper basis for scale costs.

[3]      The plaintiff raises the following factors which he says justifies a reduced payment:

(a)       this was not a case for second counsel and the defendant’s claim should be reduced by $497.50;

P v F [2014] NZHC 811 [16 April 2014]

(b)the defendant accepted two days before the hearing that the second issue which was to be determined by the Court could be agreed in favour of the plaintiff;

(c)      the matters in dispute were of genuine public interest and that this decision has implications beyond the immediate parties;

(d)finally the plaintiff is unemployed and has limited income and some reduction in costs to reflect that in the costs order is appropriate.

[4]      I agree that second counsel was not justified and the costs claim should be reduced by $497.50.

[5]      I accept the defendant’s point that it has already made deductions from the costs claim with respect to the answer to the second question to be posed to the Court. No further allowance is required.

[6]      I agree that there could be no justification for a reduction in costs because of the potential public interest in the result.  Both parties were, as the defendant points out, private individuals.

[7]      Finally, without further adequate information as to the plaintiff’s financial situation, I do not consider it would be appropriate for me to take that into account.

[8]      I, therefore, approve the defendant’s claim for costs save for the reduction of

$497.50 for a second counsel.

Ronald Young J

Solicitors:

Kensington Swan, Wellington
McElroys, Auckland