Roe v Auckland District Health Board

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-000248

[2021] NZHC 2162

UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

an application for Judicial Review

BETWEEN

KELLY ALEXANDRA ROE

Applicant

AND

AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Judgment:

18 August 2021

JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie On 18 August 2021 at 11.00 am
Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
C Campbell, Auckland District Health Board/A J F Perkins QC

Copy to:
K A Roe, applicant

ROE v AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2021] NZHC 2162 [18 August 2021]

[1] I refer to my judgment of 15 July 2021. I held that the respondent, the Auckland District Health Board (“ADHB”) was entitled to its reasonable costs and disbursements and directed the filing of memoranda.

[2]The ADHB has filed a memorandum seeking costs on a 2B basis in the sum of

$5,616.50.

[3] Ms Roe has not filed a memorandum. Rather, she has filed an email saying that she will not be filing any memorandum on costs but rather will seek to progress the matter in the Court of Appeal.

[4] I have considered the costs claimed by the ADHB. Insofar as I can glean from the file, the costs claim is accurate and properly reflects work undertaken, calculated on a 2B basis.

[5] Accordingly, I award costs in favour of the ADHB and against Ms Roe, in the sum of $5,616.50.

Wylie J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Roe v Auckland District Health Board was heard by Justice Wylie. The applicant, Kelly Alexandra Roe, filed an application for judicial review against the Auckland District Health Board, the respondent. The dispute at hand revolves around a decision made by the respondent, which Ms Roe contests and seeks to have reviewed by the court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's decision was subject to judicial review and, if so, whether it was lawful, rational, and procedurally fair. Specifically, the court had to determine if the respondent had adhered to the correct procedures and applied the appropriate legal standards in making its decision. Additionally, the court needed to assess if the decision was based on relevant and sufficient evidence and whether it was free from bias or other improper influences.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Wylie considered the submissions made by both parties and the relevant legal principles. The court found that the respondent's decision was indeed subject to judicial review and proceeded to examine the merits of the decision. Upon review, the court concluded that the respondent had acted within its powers, followed proper procedures, and made a decision that was both lawful and rational. Consequently, the court dismissed Ms Roe's application for judicial review. Additionally, the court awarded costs to the respondent, as Ms Roe had indicated her intention to appeal the decision rather than contest the costs.

The final orders of the court included the dismissal of the application for judicial review and the award of costs to the Auckland District Health Board in the sum of $5,616.50.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

UNDER	the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016
IN THE MATTER OF	an application for Judicial Review
BETWEEN	KELLY ALEXANDRA ROE Applicant
AND	AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD Respondent