Taylor v Attorney-General - [2021] NZHC 2303

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2017-485-802

[2021] NZHC 2303

BETWEEN
ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR

Applicant

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

Applicant in person

D M Kinsler and V Squires for respondent

Judgment:

3 September 2021

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE JOHNSTON

[Costs]

[1] By interlocutory application dated 11 March 2021 the plaintiff, Mr Arthur Taylor, sought orders relating to the use of material contained in a brief of evidence served by him in this proceeding for a purpose other than the proceeding itself, that is to say, for inclusion in a book entitled Prison Break: The Extraordinary Life & Crimes of New Zealand’s Most Infamous Escapee. That application was opposed by the Crown. In my judgment of 25 June 2021, I made the order sought by Mr Taylor on the grounds set out therein.1

[2] At the conclusion of my judgment I reserved costs, indicating that if the parties were unable to resolve these they were at liberty to file memoranda in the usual way and I would deal with them on the papers.

1 Taylor v Attorney-General [2021] NZHC 1546.

TAYLOR v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 2303 [3 September 2021]

[3] I now have memoranda from Mr Taylor and Mr Kinsler for the Crown concerning one costs-related issue which I am informed they are unable to resolve.

[4] Mr Taylor is acting for himself in this proceeding. He is a “litigant in person”. It is common ground that a litigant in person is not entitled to recover costs (as is any party represented by solicitors and counsel). However, a litigant in person is entitled to recover reasonable disbursements under r 14.12 of the High Court Rules 2016.

[5] The leading case is Re Collier2 where the Court of Appeal confirmed the position.

[6] In this case, with the Court’s permission, Mr Taylor was assisted at the hearing by a McKenzie Friend, that is say someone who is not a solicitor or a member of the bar, and who has no right of audience, but is permitted by the court to assist a litigant in person throughout the hearing, usually by taking notes and suggesting matters that need to be covered or lines of argument.

[7]Mr Taylor’s McKenzie Friend was Ms Heal.

[8] It seems that Ms Heal is associated with a company by the name of R & H Projects Ltd, and that that company has rendered an invoice to Mr Taylor dated 24 June 2021 in respect of attendances by Ms Heal that involved assisting Mr Taylor to prepare for and present his case. The company charged for attendances at the rate of $100 per hour and has invoiced Mr Taylor for 31.5 hours so that its GST exclusive invoice was for $2,950. It is this invoice that Mr Taylor seeks to recover as a disbursement.

[9] As Mr Taylor says the term “disbursements” is defined in r 14.12 in the following…

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 Taylor v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Taylor v Attorney-General [2021] NZHC 2303
Case: [2021] NZHC 2303
Decision Date: 3 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard an interlocutory application made by Arthur William Taylor, a litigant in person, against the Attorney-General. Taylor sought an order for the use of material from a brief of evidence served in the proceeding for a purpose other than the proceeding itself. The application was opposed by the Crown. In the interlocutory application, Taylor sought the use of material contained in a brief of evidence served by him in the proceeding for a purpose other than the proceeding itself, that is to say, for inclusion in a book entitled Prison Break: The Extraordinary Life & Crimes of New Zealand’s Most Infamous Escapee.

The court had to decide on the costs-related issue of whether Taylor could recover the cost of obtaining advice and assistance with the conduct of the case from a party other than a solicitor or counsel. Taylor argued that the courts should take a "reasonably liberal" approach in assessing what constitutes disbursements and that the amount involved was reasonable. The Crown opposed the costs order on the grounds that Taylor had not proved that he had incurred the disbursement and that it was not a disbursement within the categories that the courts had hitherto allowed. The court held that a litigant in person could only recover disbursements that fall into the categories identified in r 14.12(1) such as filing fees and the like, and the only disbursement relating to advice and assistance with the preparation and presentation of the case which the courts had to date allowed were reasonable fees rendered by legal practitioners. The court declined Taylor's application for an order that the defendant pay the particular disbursement that was in issue.

Orders