Prescott v Police

[2025] NZHC 1566

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-002232 [2025] NZHC 1566

BETWEEN  PETER-RICHARD PRESCOTT

Applicant / Judgment Debtor

AND  NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent / Judgment Creditor

Hearing:                   On the papers Appearances:  Applicant in Person

A Goosen for the Respondent

Judgment:                13 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE COGSWELL

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 June 2025 at 3.30 p.m. pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date.......................................

Solicitors:

Crown Law, Wellington

PRESCOTT v NZ POLICE [2025] NZHC 1566 [13 June 2025]

[1]                 My judgment of 26 March 2025 dismissed the applicant’s application to annul his bankruptcy under s 309(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 2006. The judgment held that the respondent was entitled to costs.

[2]                 The respondent seeks costs on scale 2B. The applicant has not filed any memorandum in response to the respondent’s application.

[3]                 The starting point on costs is that generally in relation to the determination of costs:

(a)the party who fails with respect to a proceeding or an interlocutory application should pay costs to the party who succeeds;

(b)an award of costs should reflect the complexity and significance of the proceeding;

(c)costs should be assessed by applying the appropriate daily recovery rate to the time considered reasonable for each step reasonably required, in relation to the proceeding or interlocutory application;

(d)an award of costs should not exceed the costs incurred by the party claiming the costs, and

(e)so far as possible, the determination of costs should be predictable and expeditious.

[4]                 At the end of the day, the determination of costs is an exercise of the Court’s discretion. That said, the discretion is not unfettered and has to be exercised judicially.

[5]                 Standing back and considering the costs jurisdiction as it relates to this application, I consider that the categorisation of costs on a 2B scale is appropriate. Accordingly, I award costs in the respondent’s favour as set out by the respondent in its submission in a total sum of:

(a)costs - $6,094.50, plus

(b)    disbursements - $180.87; This gives a total of $6,275.37.

Associate Judge Cogswell