Thomas v Nelson District Court - [2025] NZHC 2144

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CIV-2025-442-5/

CIV-2025-442-22 [2025] NZHC 2144

UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Criminal Procedure Act 2011
Declaratory Judgments Act 1908

IN THE MATTER OF

Thomas v Nelson District Court

BETWEEN

THOMAS

Applicant

AND

NELSON DISTRICT COURT

First Respondent

LYNDA HEINE
Second Respondent

RAYMA LEE KATU
Third Respondent

LISA JENNINGS

Fourth Respondent

On the papers:

Counsel:

Applicant in person

K Whiting and L Sinclair for First Respondent

N S P Laing and Y E Clarisse for Second, Third and Fourth Respondents

Judgment:

1 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF GRAU J [COSTS]

THOMAS v NELSON DISTRICT COURT [COSTS] [2025] NZHC 2144 [1 August 2025]

Introduction

[1] In a judgment dated 4 June 2025, I granted Ms Thomas’ application for judicial review of two decisions of the Nelson District Court declining to accept her charging documents for filing in a private prosecution against the second, third and fourth respondents.1

[2] I noted that, as the successful party, Ms Thomas, who is self-represented, is presumptively entitled to costs at a daily rate of $500.2 I also outlined my provisional view that some of her conduct in the litigation may mean a reduced award of costs is appropriate.3 I encouraged the parties to agree to a reasonable quantum of costs, but evidently no agreement was reached.

[3]While Ms Thomas initially sought costs of $11,750 and disbursements of

$819.30, she has since filed a revised memorandum seeking $8,650 in costs and
$319.30 in disbursements.

[4] The second, third and fourth respondents argue that no costs should be awarded to Ms Thomas, given she did not seek costs on either of her applications, the first respondent made an early indication it would abide, and the second, third and fourth respondents provided submissions only to assist the Court in its decision-making process, as they did not themselves make any decisions reviewable by the Court.

[5] The first respondent contends that it should not be liable for costs, as it abided the decision of the Court, and did not act perversely, oppressively, or in bad faith.

1 [Thomas] v Nelson District Court [2025] NZHC 1440. The applicant’s name has been anonymised to prevent the indentification of a child in a connected Family Court proceeding.
2 New rules providing for costs for litigants in person came into force on 1 September 2024: High Court Amendment Rules 2024, cl 2.
3 At [66].

Submissions

Second, third and fourth respondents’ submissions

[6] Mr Laing for the second, third and fourth respondents submits that Ms Thomas is not entitled to an award of costs, since none of the respondents in the proceeding ‘failed’ pursuant to r 14.2 of the High Court Rules 2016 (HCR). When the first respondent abided the decision of the Court, and the second, third and fourth respondents did not themselves make any decision that was amenable to review, accordingly they cannot be said to have failed.

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Thomas v Nelson District Court and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 2144
Decision Date: 1 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Thomas v Nelson District Court, the applicant, Ms. Thomas, sought judicial review of two decisions by the Nelson District Court to decline accepting her charging documents for filing in a private prosecution against three respondents. The High Court granted Ms. Thomas's application for judicial review, leading to a subsequent application for costs by Ms. Thomas. The Nelson District Court, as well as the three individual respondents, argued that Ms. Thomas should not be awarded costs. The primary legal issue was whether Ms. Thomas was entitled to costs and, if so, what quantum of costs should be awarded.

The court noted that the default principle is that the liability of each of two or more parties ordered to pay costs is joint and several. However, the court considered the circumstances of the case, which were similar to cases where the court found that parties who abided the court's decision should not be liable for costs. The court found that the second, third, and fourth respondents were solely liable for the costs incurred in respect of this proceeding, as they participated in the judicial review proceedings. The court also considered that some of Ms. Thomas's conduct may warrant a reduction of costs, such as filing a second statement of claim instead of amending the first one. The court awarded Ms. Thomas costs of $3,250 and disbursements of $271.30, to be paid by the second, third, and fourth respondents.

The final orders of the court were that Ms. Thomas is awarded costs of $3,250 and disbursements of $271.30, to be paid by the second, third, and fourth respondents.

Orders