IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2021-404-248
[2022] NZHC 192
BETWEEN KELLY ALEXANDRA ROE
Applicant
AND
AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD
Respondent
Hearing: On the papers Judgment:
16 February 2022
JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J
[Costs]
This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie On 16 February 2022 at 11.00 am
Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:…………………………
Solicitors/counsel:
Auckland District Health Board
Copy to:
K A Roe, Applicant
ROE v AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2022] NZHC 192 [16 February 2022]
Introduction
[1] In a substantive judgment dated 15 July 2021, I declined to strike out proceedings as sought by the respondent – the Auckland District Health Board – and gave Ms Roe the opportunity to file an amended statement of claim. I stayed the proceedings in the interim.1
[2] I subsequently gave a costs judgment in favour of the Auckland District Health Board.2
[3] Ms Roe sought leave to appeal my costs judgment, having earlier unsuccessfully sought to appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court. I declined to grant leave on 17 December 2021.3
[4] The Auckland District Health Board now seeks costs in resisting Ms Roe’s application. It has calculated costs on a 2B basis in the sum of $5,019. It does not however seek this sum, as the actual cost to it was only $2,250, plus GST. It seeks an award of $2,250.
[5] Ms Roe was invited to file submissions. She has indicated that she does not intend to do so.
Analysis
[6] I am satisfied that an award of costs is appropriate. Ms Roe’s application for leave to appeal was devoid of any legal or factual merit. As a result of the application, the Auckland District Health Board was put to unnecessary time and expense. As the successful party, it is entitled to its reasonable costs from Ms Roe.
[7] Here, I am satisfied that the proceedings were appropriately categorised on a 2B basis. If the applicable schedules were to be applied, the award would exceed the actual costs incurred. Rule 14.2(f) of the High Court Rules 2016 provides that an
1 Roe v Auckland District Health Board [2021] NZHC 1780.
award of costs should not exceed the costs incurred by the party claiming costs. In such situations, it is instead the amount incurred which is normally awarded.4
[8] Applying these principles, it follows that the appropriate award against Ms Roe and in favour of the Auckland District Health Board is the sum of $2,250. I award costs accordingly.
Wylie J
4 Taunoa v Attorney-General [compensation] (2004) 8 HRNZ 53 (HC) at [45].
- AGLC
- Roe v Auckland District Health Board [2022] NZHC 192
- Case
- [2022] NZHC 192
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether Ms Roe's application for leave to appeal was legally or factually meritorious and, if not, whether the District Health Board was entitled to recover its costs from Ms Roe. The assessment also involved determining the appropriate basis for calculating the costs, considering that the actual costs incurred were lower than the costs calculated under the standard schedule.
Justice Wylie found that Ms Roe's appeal application lacked merit and that the District Health Board had been put to unnecessary expense as a result. The court ruled that the appropriate award of costs should be limited to the actual amount incurred by the District Health Board. Applying this principle, Justice Wylie awarded the District Health Board costs of $2,250, plus GST.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.