Legal Research
Cases
Peters v Bennett

Peters v Bennett

Case [2020] NZHC 1734 17 July 2020

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-001122

[2020] NZHC 1734

BETWEEN
WINSTON RAYMOND PETERS

Plaintiff

AND

PAULA BENNETT

First Defendant

PETER HUGHES
Second Defendant

ANNE MERRILYN TOLLEY
Third Defendant

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL sued on

behalf of the MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Fourth Defendant

BRENDAN BOYLE

Fifth Defendant

Hearing: (On the papers)

Judgment:

17 July 2020

COSTS JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 17 July 2020 at 2.15 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors: Clifton Killip Lyon, Auckland
Kiely Thompson Caisley, Auckland Crown Law, Wellington

Counsel:B Henry/S Singh Auckland B Gray QC, Auckland
V Casey QC, Wellington

PETERS v BENNETT [2020] NZHC 1734 [17 July 2020]

Introduction

[1] In a judgment delivered on 20 April 2020 the Court dismissed Mr Peters’ claims for damages and declarations.1 Costs were reserved. The parties have been unable to agree on costs. Counsel have exchanged memoranda.2

[2] The first and third defendants seek scale costs calculated on a combination of categories 2B and 3B. They seek costs plus disbursements in the sum of $133,821.26.

[3] The second, fourth and fifth defendants (the Crown defendants) seek costs on a partial indemnity basis of $645,166.39, including disbursements or, in the alternative, scale costs calculated on a combination of 2B and 3B, amounting to
$233,516.11 (including disbursements).

[4] The plaintiff resists the imposition of an order for costs. He submits that costs should lie where they fall. Alternatively, costs should be limited to scale costs on a 2B basis. The plaintiff calculates the first and third defendants costs and disbursements on a 2B basis as amounting to $101,897.26 and the costs of the Crown defendants to scale to be $173,663.11 (including disbursements).

Principles

[5] While all matters in relation to costs are at the discretion of the Court the discretion is to be exercised in accordance with the general principles and rules in Part 14 of the High Court Rules. An unsuccessful party should normally pay costs: HCR 14.2(a). Predictability and consistency in the determination of costs is an important consideration: HCR 14.2(g).

1 Peters v Bennett [2020] NZHC 761.
2 First and third defendants, dated 2 June 2020 and reply 8 July 2020;
Second, fourth and fifth defendants, dated 2 June 2020 and reply 10 July 2020; Plaintiff, dated 3 July 2020.

Preliminary matters

[6] The plaintiff’s principal submission is that no costs should be awarded as all defendants were funded by the Crown and these proceedings involved a matter of public interest.

[7] The fact that all defendants are funded by the Crown is of itself not a relevant consideration in relation to the issue of costs in this particular case. As Ms Casey QC submitted, generally the fact the defendants are funded by the Crown is not relevant to the question of whether costs should follow the event or not. Crown litigation is conducted with public money.

[8]…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Peters v Bennett

Details

AGLC: Peters v Bennett [2020] NZHC 1734
Case: [2020] NZHC 1734
Decision Date: 17 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Peters v Bennett was a case heard in the High Court of New Zealand where Winston Raymond Peters brought claims for damages and declarations against Paula Bennett, Peter Hughes, Anne Merrilyn Tolley, the Attorney General on behalf of the Ministry of Social Development, and Brendan Boyle. The plaintiff alleged breaches of privacy and sought damages and declarations. The court dismissed all claims in a prior judgment, reserving costs. The defendants sought various costs orders, while the plaintiff resisted any order for costs. The court had to decide whether costs should follow the event and, if so, on what basis they should be quantified.

The court first considered whether costs should follow the event, noting that generally, an unsuccessful party should pay costs. The plaintiff argued that the case involved matters of public interest and that Crown funding should preclude an order for costs. The court rejected these arguments, finding the case did not raise issues of general public interest beyond the plaintiff’s personal interests. The court held that costs should follow the event.

Next, the court assessed the basis for quantifying costs. The Crown defendants sought indemnity costs for the plaintiff's allegations of bad faith, which the court found to be without merit. While the court found that the plaintiff's claims were not vexatious overall, the specific allegations of bad faith were improper and not supported by evidence. The court awarded a partial uplift in costs for the Crown defendants to reflect the time spent on these unfounded allegations. The court also noted that the failure to accept a Calderbank offer contributed to the costs. The court rejected the claim for indemnity costs, opting instead for an uplift on the scale costs.

Finally, the court categorised the proceedings as category 2 for costs purposes, finding the legal issues were not unduly complex. It also made adjustments to the time allocations for certain steps in the proceedings as requested by the plaintiff's counsel. The court approved the disbursements claimed by the Crown defendants, including costs for briefing an expert witness who was not called to testify.

The court ordered that the first and third defendants were to receive costs of $101,897.26 on a 2B basis, while the Crown defendants were to receive $150,527.00 on a 2B basis with an uplift, plus disbursements of $65,394.11, totalling $215,921.11. The defendants were to have their costs against the plaintiff in the sums stated.

Orders