Prescott v Thompson - [2020] NZHC 1858

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-1972

[2020] NZHC 1858

BETWEEN
PETER RICHARD PRESCOTT

Applicant

AND

VIOLET GEORGINA THOMPSON

First respondent

AND

DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND

Second respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

The applicant in person

R E Harrison QC for the first respondent Appearance excused for the second respondent

Judgment:

30 July 2020

JUDGMENT NO 3 OF PALMER J

(Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday 30 July 2020 at 3.00pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Party/Counsel/Solicitors:
The applicant
R E Harrison QC, Auckland R S Wood, Auckland Crown Law, Wellington

PRESCOTT v THOMPSON NO 3 [2020] NZHC 1858 [30 July 2020]

What happened?

[1] On 15 May 2020, I issued judgment in these proceedings.1 In summary, I stated:

[1] Mr Peter Prescott applies for judicial review of decisions by the District Court not to adjourn his claim against his ex-partner, Ms Violet Thompson. But the District Court’s decisions were entirely reasonable and there is no evidence of bias or apparent bias by the judge. I dismiss the application for judicial review.

[2] I gave leave for submissions to be filed on costs. Ms Thompson seeks increased costs or, alternatively, costs on the basis of categories three or two, and C or B, under pt 14 of the High Court Rules 2016 (the Rules). Mr Prescott opposes that.

Submissions

[3]Mr Harrison QC, for Ms Thompson, submits:

(a)Ms Thompson’s legal costs exceed $72,000, and categories three and C are more appropriate than categories two and B.

(b)Mr Prescott’s substantive claims were plainly hopeless and his approach was to take numerous technical, completely unnecessary and unmeritorious points and objections throughout the proceedings.

(c)Mr Prescott’s four interlocutory applications and most of his unnecessary memoranda relate to largely unsuccessful attempts to strike out Ms Thompsons affidavits. The applications were not the subject of conventional response but did require to be read and analysed and, in some instances, a response had to be prepared.

(d)Ms Thompson’s costs were substantially increased by the highly discursive, repetitive and often irrelevant content of Mr Prescott’s pleadings and the selective and incomplete documentary material he put before the Court.

1 Prescott v Thompson (No 2) [2020] NZHC 1004 (Substantive decision).

(e)Ms Thompson’s abuse of process defence in the substantive proceeding should be ruled upon and is relevant to costs.

(f)The need for robustness in dealing with unreasonably persistent serial litigants in person who attempt collateral attack on final judgments was affirmed recently in Faloon v Planning Tribunal at Wellington.2

(g)The fact the proceedings invoked the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 does not mean costs should not awarded.

(h)The claim does not include a claim for costs of Mr Prescott’s successful opposition to Ms Thompson’s application for security for costs.3

[4] Mr Prescott’s submissions rehearse his substantive claims. He submits his case was a bona fide claim under the Bill of Rights…

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 Prescott v Thompson

Details

AGLC: Prescott v Thompson [2020] NZHC 1858
Case: [2020] NZHC 1858
Decision Date: 30 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Prescott v Thompson, the applicant, Peter Prescott, sought judicial review of decisions made by the District Court not to adjourn his claim against his ex-partner, Violet Thompson. The High Court dismissed the application for judicial review and ordered costs against Prescott. The court then considered the issue of costs, with Thompson seeking increased costs or, alternatively, costs on the basis of categories three and C under the High Court Rules 2016.

The legal issues before the court were whether costs should be awarded to Thompson, and if so, whether they should be increased or awarded on a different basis. Thompson argued that Prescott’s claims were plainly hopeless, his approach was to take numerous technical, unnecessary and unmeritorious points and objections throughout the proceedings, and his pleadings were highly discursive, repetitive and often irrelevant. Prescott, on the other hand, argued that his case was a bona fide claim under the Bill of Rights Act and that to decide otherwise would be to conflict with binding precedents and prevent access to the protections under the Act.

The court found that Prescott was entitled to bring the proceedings, but his claims failed by a fair margin and costs should be awarded against him. The court considered that Prescott’s pursuit of the bias allegations, without evidence, contributed unnecessarily to the time of the proceeding. The court also found that Prescott’s applications to strike out affidavits and evidence were dismissed and lacked merit, and also contributed unnecessarily to the time of the proceeding. The court awarded costs to Thompson, against Prescott, on a 2B basis uplifted by 25 per cent.

The court awarded costs to Thompson, against Prescott, on a 2B basis uplifted by 25 per cent.

Orders