Rider v District Court, Auckland

[2021] NZHC 2216

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2020-404-1343

[2021] NZHC 2216

IN THE MATTER OF

An application for judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

BETWEEN

BRETT PHILIP RIDER

Applicant

AND

DISTRICT COURT, AUCKLAND

First Respondent

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Second Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

K J Crossland for Applicant

Z R Hamill for Second Respondent

Judgment:

27 August 2021

COSTS JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 27 August 2021 at 11:00am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

RIDER v DISTRICT COURT, AUCKLAND [2021] NZHC 2216 [27 August 2021]

[1]    In my judgment dated 30 July 2021, I dismissed Mr Rider’s application for judicial review. I said the Attorney-General was entitled to costs. I directed that if the parties could not agree the amount of costs they should file and serve memoranda.

[2]    The parties have not agreed costs. The Attorney-General seeks 2B costs in the sum of $14,447.22. Mr Crossland, on behalf of Mr Rider, accepts the costs calculation is accurate.

[3]    Mr Crossland submits the case raised a point of public interest in a novel set of circumstances. He says the case was not an irresponsible one to pursue. He notes the case would not have been taken had he not been acting pro bono. In these circumstances he says there should be no order as to costs.

[4]    Under r 14.7(e) of the High Court Rules 2016 I may reduce or refuse costs where the proceeding concerned a matter of public interest and the party opposing costs acted reasonably in the conduct of the proceeding. I have no concern with the manner in which Mr Rider conducted the proceeding and it is to Mr Crossland’s credit that he pursued it pro bono. But I do not consider the proceeding concerned a matter of public interest. The law that I applied in dismissing Mr Rider’s application is well settled. There was nothing particularly novel about the circumstances in which I had to apply that law.

[5]    Mr Crossland alternatively seeks an affordable time payment arrangement. That is not a matter that comes within the scope of the rules relating to costs.

[6]I order Mr Rider to pay the Attorney-General costs of $14,447.22.

Campbell J