Stevenson v Attorney-General

[2025] NZHC 1864

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-2716 [2025] NZHC 1864

BETWEEN  ROBERT ALFRED STEVENSON

Plaintiff

AND  ATTORNEY-GENERAL (in respect of the

Department of Corrections) First Defendant

SERCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Second Defendant

Judgment

(on the papers):

9 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF ROBINSON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 July 2025 at 2:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

MC, Auckland

Wotton Kearney, Auckland

Copy to:

The Plaintiff

STEVENSON v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2025] NZHC 1864 [9 July 2025]

[1]        The defendants each seek an award of costs after the plaintiff’s claim has been struck out for failure to comply with unless orders.

[2]The plaintiff opposes.

Background

[3]        On 30 July 2024 Johnstone J directed the plaintiff to file and serve written statements of evidence together with his list of documents for the common bundle by 8 November 2024. He did not do so. Nor did he serve notices under r 9.7(6) of the High Court Rules 2016.

[4]        On 25 March 2025 Venning J ordered that unless the plaintiff files and serves evidence or otherwise complies with r 9.7(6) by 30 April 2025 his claim in this proceeding would be struck out with costs reserved. He did not do so.

[5]        The first defendant (the Attorney-General in respect of the Department of Corrections) seeks costs of $21,749 calculated on a 2B basis, together with disbursements of $363. The second defendant (Serco New Zealand Limited) seeks costs on a 2B basis of $23,183 together with disbursements of $428. The relevant items for which each defendant claims costs are set out in separate schedules attached to their Joint Memorandum of Counsel dated 28 May 2025.

[6]        At all relevant times Mr Stevenson has been a sentenced prisoner. He says that he was unable to provide evidence by the due date because he is falsely imprisoned, and because of the Court’s unlawful decision to strike out his previous application for judicial review of the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s decision not to review his conviction.1 He also says he intended to consolidate this proceeding with a claim in tort for false imprisonment.

Decision

[7]        The plaintiff sets out in some detail why he considers the decision to strike out his earlier judicial review proceeding was unlawful, but he does not explain how this

1      S v Criminal Cases Review Commission [2024] NZHC 3856.

led to his failure to file and serve evidence in this proceeding. Similarly, his intention to consolidate this proceeding with proceedings yet to be filed has been dealt with previously, including in terms of costs,2 but it does not explain why he did not comply with the Court’s unless orders.

[8]        I accept counsel for each defendant’s submission that they are entitled to costs pursuant to r 14.2(1)(a) of the High Court Rules. Counsel anticipated that the plaintiff would assert impecuniosity, but he did not. In any event, that is not generally a reason not to award costs. Whilst not determinative, I note that any impecuniosity that might be inferred has not previously precluded the Court from awarding costs against the plaintiff.3

[9]        The costs claimed by each defendant are for steps reasonably taken in this proceeding. The disbursements are for filing fees properly incurred. I therefore award the defendants costs as set out in the schedules to their Joint Memorandum of Counsel dated 28 May 2025.

Robinson J

2      Stevenson v Department of Corrections & Serco [2024] NZHC 2456.

3      Stevenson v Independent Police Conduct Authority [2016] NZHC 1571; S v Attorney-General [2024] NZHC 258; Stevenson v Department of Corrections & Anor, above n 2; and Stevenson v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections [2024] NZHC 1822.