Reid v Tararua District Council

[2010] NZCA 415

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA452/2009
[2010] NZCA 415

BETWEENJAMES ROBERT REID

Appellant

ANDTARARUA DISTRICT COUNCIL

First Respondent

ANDPALMERSTON NORTH HIGH COURT

Second Respondent

CA799/2009

AND BETWEEN  JAMES ROBERT REID

Appellant

ANDTARARUA DISTRICT COUNCIL

Respondent

Court:Glazebrook, Randerson and Stevens JJ

Counsel:Appellant in person

D J Neutze for Respondents

Judgment:9 September 2010 at 3.30 p.m.

FURTHER JUDGMENT ON COSTS

The orders for costs made against the appellant on 8 September 2010 remain effective from that date.

___________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Randerson J)

[1]        On 8 September 2010 we delivered a judgment against Mr Reid awarding costs to the Tararua District Council in respect of these two appeals.

[2]        We stated at [2] of the judgment that no memorandum had been received from Mr Reid.  Since delivery of the judgment, Mr Reid has stated in an email that he filed and served memoranda on 10 August 2010.  He maintains the costs orders were ultra vires.  The Registry has advised that these memoranda did not reach the court file.  In the circumstances, we propose to treat Mr Reid’s advice as an application to recall the costs judgment to avoid any possibility of injustice to him.

[3]        Mr Reid has now provided copies of the memoranda which we have considered.  Each is expressed in virtually identical terms.  Mr Reid maintains that the appeals were a nullity because the court struck out the second respondents to the appeals without notice to him.  He submits that the payment of filing fees and lodging of security for costs are matters between the appellant and court staff and that the Council had no legal right to interfere.  He also maintains that the quantum of costs and disbursements are exorbitant, disproportionate and unnecessary.  He claims to have a right to have them reviewed by the Law Society.

[4]        We are not persuaded that any of the points raised by Mr Reid in opposition to the costs orders, if received within the time allowed, would have caused us to reach any different view.  The nullity issue was dealt with in our judgment of 27 July 2010.  The striking out of the second respondent was found to have no relevance to the issues we had to determine and did not affect Mr Reid’s appeal against the Council.

[5]        The application by the Council for orders under r 37(1) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 to strike out the appeals were properly brought and were successful.

[6]        As to the quantum of costs, we agree with Mr Reid that the costs were excessive.  That is why we fixed the quantum of the indemnity costs awarded at a significantly lower level than claimed.  This court plainly has jurisdiction to make costs orders irrespective of any steps a party to the litigation might take to have the level of fees reviewed by the Law Society.

[7]        There is no basis to recall the costs orders of 8 September 2010 which remain effective from that date.

[8]        The reasons for judgment issued on 8 September 2010 are to be read in conjunction with this judgment.

Solicitors:

Brookfields, Auckland, for Respondents