Paterson v Attorney-General

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2019-485-000731

[2021] NZHC 61

BETWEEN
GARTH BOWKETT PATERSON

Plaintiff

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Defendant

Hearing: [On the Papers]

Appearances:

G B Paterson (Self-represented Plaintiff) in Person H M Carrad and L Dittrich for Defendant

Judgment:

3 February 2021

JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS J

[re Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 February 2021 at 12.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Crown Law, Wellington

Copy To: G B Paterson, Australia

PATERSON v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 61 [3 February 2021]

[1] The plaintiff’s claims against the Attorney-General were dismissed in my judgment dated 9 December 2020.1 The defendant seeks costs and disbursements in the sum of $25,903 which have been calculated according to schedule 2B of the High Court Rules 2016.

[2] Mr Paterson submits that costs should not be awarded against him due to the misconduct of the defendant in admitting that the daily list published on 5 April 2016 contained an error. He emphasises that the proceeding was brought pursuant to s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and was not brought for financial gain. Mr Paterson also challenges the quantum of costs claimed on the basis that they are likely to exceed the actual costs incurred.

[3] I am not persuaded that these are reasons either to not award costs or reduce costs. Mr Paterson’s submissions are essentially the same as the arguments which were put forward in support of his claim and rejected by me in the substantive judgment. The submission regarding quantum has no merit. The costs have been calculated according to scale and are undoubtedly less than the actual costs incurred.

[4] The defendant is entitled to costs as the successful party in the litigation. The costs have been conservatively calculated and are reasonable in all the circumstances.

[5] Accordingly, I award costs and disbursements in favour of the Attorney- General in the sum of $25,903.

Edwards J

1 Paterson v Attorney-General [2020] NZHC 3253.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Garth Bowkett Paterson commenced proceedings against the Attorney-General, asserting claims under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The claims were dismissed by the court in a judgment dated 9 December 2020. The Attorney-General now seeks costs and disbursements, which have been calculated in accordance with the High Court Rules 2016. Paterson opposes the award of costs, arguing that the Attorney-General’s admission of an error in the daily list published on 5 April 2016 should preclude such an award. He further contends that the costs claimed by the Attorney-General are excessive.

The court considered Paterson’s arguments but found them unpersuasive. The court noted that Paterson's submissions mirrored those made in his substantive claims, which were previously rejected. The argument regarding the quantum of costs claimed was also dismissed, as the costs were calculated according to the scale and were deemed reasonable. The court held that the Attorney-General, as the successful party in the litigation, was entitled to costs. The court found that the costs were conservatively calculated and appropriate in the circumstances.

In light of the above, the court awarded costs and disbursements in the sum of $25,903 in favour of the Attorney-General. The decision emphasised that the costs were reasonable and necessary, reflecting the actual costs incurred by the Attorney-General. The court's judgment concludes that the successful party is entitled to recover their costs from the losing party.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	[On the Papers]
Appearances:	G B Paterson (Self-represented Plaintiff) in Person H M Carrad and L Dittrich for Defendant
Judgment:	3 February 2021