Siemer v Chief Justice of the New Zealand Supreme Court HC Auckland CIV-2009-404-8435

[2011] NZHC 1399

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2009-404-8435

BETWEEN  VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Plaintiff

ANDCHIEF JUSTICE OF THE NEW ZEALAND SUPREME COURT First Defendant

ANDTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND

Second Defendant

Appearances: Plaintiff in person

P Gunn for the Defendants in CIV-2009-404-8435, CIV-2009-404-
8438 and CIV-2010-404-0084
A Powell for the Defendants in CIV-2010-404-7025 and CIV-2010-
404-7026

Judgment:      31 October 2011 at 4:30 PM

JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J (Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 October 2011 at 4:30 p.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Parties / Solicitors:

Mr V R Siemer, Gulf Harbour
Mr P Gunn, Crown Law, Wellington

Mr A Powell, Crown Law, Wellington

SIEMER V CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE NEW ZEALAND SUPREME COURT HC AK CIV-2009-404-8435 31

October 2011

Cont …

CIV-2009-404-8438

BETWEEN  VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Plaintiff

ANDTHE SOLICITOR-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND

Defendant

CIV-2010-404-0084

BETWEEN  VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Plaintiff

ANDTHE SOLICITOR-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND

Defendant

CIV-2010-404-7025

BETWEEN  VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Plaintiff

ANDGRAHAM LAURIE LANG First Defendant

ANDTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND

Second Defendant

CIV-2010-404-7025

BETWEEN  VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Plaintiff

ANDMARK LESLIE COOPER First Defendant

ANDTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND

Second Defendant

[1]     The defendants seek costs on a 2B basis in respect of their successful applications to strike out the claims.  Mr Siemer opposes the application.

[2]      Under High Court r 14.1(1) “all matters are at the discretion of the Court if they relate to costs”.  This is not an unfettered discretion.  It is subject to principles set out in the High Court Rules and the leading judgments on costs.  The first stated principle, in r 14.2(a) is that “the party who fails with respect to a proceeding or an interlocutory application should pay costs to the party who succeeds”.

[3]      Mr Siemer advanced two main grounds for opposing the application.   The first is that he “has not received any break down of costs from the State defendant”. Mr Siemer said that for that reason he is not able to address the issue “from an informed position”.  This would not prevent a decision on the question of costs as a matter of principle.   However, there are schedules attached to the defendants’ memorandum setting out the details in respect of the costs items sought.  There is nothing in this ground of opposition.

[4]      The second ground is that there was “a fundamental and fatal flaw in law” in my substantive judgment and Mr Siemer has appealed.   This is not a reason to decline costs.

[5]      There will be orders for costs in each of the proceedings, together with disbursements, as sought.

Woodhouse J