Rowell v District Court

[2018] NZHC 135

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE WHANGANUI-Ā-TARA ROHE

CIV 2017-406-17 [2018] NZHC 135

BETWEEN

BRIAN CYRIL ROWELL

Applicant

AND

DISTRICT COURT First Respondent

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL Second Respondent

Hearing:	12 February 2018 (Teleconference)
Counsel:	Applicant in Person P D Marshall for Second Respondent
Ruling:	14 February 2018

RULING OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1]      The second respondent applies for a review of the Registrar’s decision fixing disbursements at $160 (being recovery of a court fee).  The second respondent says the sum is too high.   He sought only $139.13 but the Registrar, over the second respondent’s wishes, added a GST component. The second respondent says he is only entitled to $139.13 since the Crown Law Office is GST registered.  He does not wish to seek  from Mr Rowell anything more than that to which he is  entitled.   The Attorney-General relies on the Court of Appeal decision in New Zealand Venue and

Event Management Ltd v Worldwide NZ LLC.1

1      New Zealand Venue and Event Management Ltd v Worldwide NZ LLC [2016] NZCA 282, (2016)

23 PRNZ 260.

ROWELL v DISTRICT COURT [2018] NZHC 135 [14 February 2018]

[2]      Mr Rowell opposes.  He submits that the Registrar is bound by reg 24 of the

High Court Fee Regulations 2013 which provides:

24       GST included

The fees fixed by these regulations are inclusive of goods and services tax.

Mr Rowell submits the Registrar has no choice, and the Court of Appeal erred when reaching its decision.

[3]      In New Zealand Venue and Event Management, the Court of Appeal stated the GST position as regards costs and disbursements.   Disbursements are the same as indemnity costs where the aim is to ensure the successful party is fully reimbursed. Whether GST is added will normally depend on whether the successful party is GST registered.  If it is, GST is not added.2

[4]      The second respondent (through the Crown Law Office) is GST registered. He rightly requested the Registrar to not add GST to the reasonably incurred disbursements.  That should have occurred.  The Registrar is not obliged to order full recovery over the request of the party seeking recovery for a lesser sum.

[5]      There is nothing in the High Court Fee Regulations 2013 that affects this.  If the fee is GST inclusive, a person registered for GST, as here, should seek reimbursement of the fee less GST.

[6]      The application is allowed.  Pursuant to r 14.23 of the High Court Rules 2016

I direct the Registrar to fix the disbursements at $139.13.

Simon France J

2      At [13]–[18].