Stevenson v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

[2024] NZHC 1822

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2022-404-842

[2024] NZHC 1822

BETWEEN

ROBERT ALFRED STEVENSON

Plaintiff

AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

First Defendant

SERCO NZ

Second Defendant

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

The Plaintiff in Person

S M Kinsler / C S A Jordan for the First Defendant
M Henaghan / A McElhinney for the Second Defendant

Date:

17 December 2024

COSTS JUDGMENT OF GARDINER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 17 December 2024 at 2.00 p.m. pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell, Auckland Wotton Kearney, Auckland

Copy to: The Plaintiff

STEVENSON v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2024] NZHC 1822 [17

December 2024]

[1]                 The plaintiff, Mr Stevenson, is presently serving a custodial sentence. This proceeding arose out of his complaints about his treatment while in prison. He sought exemplary damages for negligence, breach of the Corrections Act 2004 and pain and suffering.

[2]                 The proceeding was allocated a seven-day trial, commencing on 3 March 2025. However, after Mr Stevenson repeatedly failed to comply with timetable directions to serve his written briefs of evidence, the proceeding was administratively struck-out on 1 November 2024.1

[3]                 The defendants each seek 2B costs and disbursements against Mr Stevenson. The first defendant claims 2B costs of $25,573 and disbursements of $220. The second defendant claims 2B costs of $23,183 and disbursements of $220.

Submissions

[4]                 The defendants submit that costs should be awarded, and should not be reduced because:

(a)In accordance with r  14.2(1)(a)  of  the  High  Court  Rules  2016,  Mr Stevenson is the party who has failed with respect to the proceeding and so should pay costs to the defendants, being the parties who have succeeded.

(b)Mr Stevenson failed to comply with multiple directions of the Court, resulting in increased costs.

(c)Impecuniosity is not generally a ground for declining to award costs. “[F]inancial hardship is not an answer to a claim for costs”.2 In any event, Mr Stevenson’s financial position has not been a barrier to an award of costs in other proceedings.3

1 Minute dated 16 September 2024 at [17].

2      Foni v Foliaki [2018] NZHC 3126 at [5](a).

3      Stevenson v Independent Police Conduct Authority [2016] NZHC 1571; S v Attorney-General

[2024] NZHC 258; Stevenson v Department of Corrections & Anor [2024] NZHC 2456.

(d)There was no broader public interest element in these proceedings that might warrant reduction of costs.

[5]                 Mr Stevenson filed a memorandum in which he opposes an award of costs against him. His arguments are:

(a)No award of costs should be made in view of his application for judicial review of the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s decision to take no further action in relation to his conviction.

(b)The proceeding arose out of his false imprisonment, the matter he seeks to have the Criminal Cases Review Commission consider.

(c)He intended to have this proceeding consolidated with his claim for false imprisonment once the Commission completed its review. He requested a suspension of the proceedings until the false imprisonment issue was determined but the Court declined that request.

(d)The High Court Judge who directed that request and made the unless order that resulted in the proceeding being struck out had a conflict of interest.

(e)The same High Court Judge declined his request for an amicus for his trial in 2008.

Discussion

[6]                 The matters Mr Stevenson raises are not relevant to the issue of costs on the strike out of his proceeding. Mr Stevenson’s claim was struck-out because he failed to advance it in a reasonably diligent and timely manner. Specifically, he repeatedly breached timetable orders relating to the filing of his evidence.

[7]                 This  is  not  the  appropriate  forum   for  conflict   of  interest   allegations.  If Mr Stevenson wants to pursue this allegation he can make a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.

[8]                 I accept the defendants’ submission that Mr Stevenson is the unsuccessful party for the purposes of r 14.2(1)(a) and therefore should pay costs to the defendants. The defendants have been put to additional cost because of Mr Stevenson’s repeated non- compliance with the timetable, in the form of additional memoranda and case management hearings. Despite that, they do not seek increased costs.

Result

[9]I order Mr Stevenson to pay costs and disbursements:

(a)To the first defendant in the sum of $25,793; and

(b)To the second defendant in the sum of $23,403.

Gardiner J