Solicitor-General v Krieger - [2014] NZHC 744

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CIV-2013-425-000273 [2014] NZHC 744

BETWEEN THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND
Applicant

ANDMARC ALLEN KRIEGER Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances: S McKechnie for the Applicant
Respondent in Person

Judgment: 9 April 2014

JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J [RE COSTS]

Introduction

[1] The substantive decision contained a finding that Mr Krieger was in contempt of Court, resulting in the imposition of a fine by way of penalty. Costs were reserved.

[2] Counsel for the Solicitor-General has filed a memorandum seeking indemnity costs and a supporting affidavit. The affidavit contains some updating evidence. Mr Krieger has not filed submissions.

Indemnity costs

[3] Rule 14.6(4) of the High Court Rules governs indemnity costs. Indemnity costs are the actual costs, disbursements, and witness expenses reasonably incurred

SOLICITOR-GENERAL v KRIEGER [2014] NZHC 744 [9 April 2014]

by the party seeking an award.1 There is an onus on the claiming party to persuade the Court that indemnity costs are justified. Rule 14.6(4) provides that indemnity costs may be awarded if:

(a) the party has acted vexatiously, frivolously, improperly, or unnecessarily in commencing, continuing, or defending a proceeding or a step in a proceeding; or

(b) the party has ignored or disobeyed an order or direction of the court or breached an undertaking given to the court or another party.

[4] Counsel contends that Mr Krieger’s behaviour throughout the history of this proceeding falls squarely within the scope of both paras (a) and (b).

The circumstances relied upon to support an award of indemnity costs

[5] Counsel’s memorandum contains a full outline of the circumstances advanced in support of the present application. Most of the circumstances are also outlined in the contempt judgment of 17 February 2014 under the heading “The background to the alleged contempt”. I think it undesirable to give added currency to Mr Krieger’s views and comments by repeating them in this costs judgment. Instead, I shall summarise the main aspects of his behaviour which I am well satisfied justify an award of indemnity costs under both paras (a) and (b) of the rule.

[6] When an interim order was made on 8 April 2013 restraining further publication of the information contained in the EQC spreadsheet pending the hearing of an interim injunction application, Mr Krieger published a release on his website in which he disagreed with the making of the order, but said he would respect it because he “steadfastly believed in the principle that upholding the rule of law is sacrosanct”.

[7] The following day, however, after the application for an interim injunction had been heard in Mr Krieger’s absence and an interim order made, there was an abrupt change in Mr Krieger’s attitude. He rejected the decision, characterising it as beyond jurisdiction and unlawful. He added that he would release the entire
spreadsheet database within 24 hours, whereas previously Mr Krieger’s approach

1 R 14.6(1)(b).

had been to only supply data relating to individual householders upon application. This reversal was a direct affront…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Solicitor-General v Krieger

Details

AGLC: Solicitor-General v Krieger [2014] NZHC 744
Case: [2014] NZHC 744
Decision Date: 9 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand dealt with an application for indemnity costs in the case of Solicitor-General v Krieger. The applicant, the Solicitor-General, sought the costs from the respondent, Marc Allen Krieger, following a finding of contempt against Krieger. The primary judge, Justice Panckhurst, was tasked with determining whether Krieger's conduct warranted the award of indemnity costs under Rule 14.6(4) of the High Court Rules. This rule allows for such costs if a party has acted vexatiously, frivolously, improperly, or unnecessarily, or has disobeyed a court order.

The legal issue before the court was whether Krieger's actions during the contempt proceedings met the criteria for indemnity costs. The court needed to assess whether Krieger's conduct was vexatious, frivolous, improper, or unnecessary, or if he had disobeyed court orders. The judge found that Krieger's behaviour throughout the proceedings, including his disregard for court orders, personal attacks on counsel and judges, and threats to release confidential information, met the criteria for an award of indemnity costs.

Justice Panckhurst concluded that Krieger's conduct was indeed vexatious, frivolous, and improper. The judge awarded indemnity costs, including fees and disbursements, amounting to $50,119.28. This decision underscores the court's power to award indemnity costs when a party's actions in a proceeding are deemed to be in violation of the principles of proper conduct before the court.

Orders