Peters v Bennett

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.