Rasmussen v Disputes Tribunal at Pukekohe
[2017] NZHC 2998
•5 December 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2017-404-910
[2017] NZHC 2998
UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 BETWEEN
PATRICIA RASMUSSEN AND KEVIN LANCE RASMUSSEN
Applicants
AND
THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL AT PUKEKOHE
First Respondent
KIM CRYNS AND HARRY CRYNS
Second Respondents
Hearing: (On the papers) Counsel:
P J Broad for Applicants
Judgment:
5 December 2017
JUDGMENT OF BREWER J (COSTS)
Solicitors:
RASMUSSEN v THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL AT PUKEKOHE [2017] NZHC 2998 [5 December 2017]
Peter Broad (Auckland) for Applicants (Second Respondents in person)
[1]This Judgment determines costs in the substantive proceeding.
[2]In my Judgment, I said:1
[18] The Cryns’ counsel did not appear for the hearing because the Cryns decided the cost would be prohibitive. Nevertheless, they are entitled to costs. I fix these, tentatively, on a 2B basis. Unless I receive submissions opposing 2B costs by 5:00 pm on 30 November 2017, costs will crystallise on that basis.
[3] Counsel for the Rasmussens has filed submissions in relation to costs. He submits that costs be fixed at category 2 and that time allocation A is reasonable. He points out that the Cryns were not represented by counsel and, so far as he is aware, they were not advised by counsel.
[4] I note that the only document filed by the Cryns was filed by them in person, although it appears to have been drafted by a lawyer and it refers to the Cryns having taken legal advice.
[5] I accept Mr Broad’s submission that litigants in person are not entitled, except in exceptional cases, to recover litigation costs. They may recover disbursements.
[6] To the extent that the Cryns incurred legal expenses in this matter which are recoverable under the Rules, I award them costs on a category 2A basis. Otherwise, they may recover their relevant disbursements.
Brewer J
1 Rasmussen v The Disputes Tribunal at Pukekohe [2017] NZHC 2812.
0