IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE
CIV-2019-419-326
[2020] NZHC 622
IN THE MATTER of the Trustee Act 1956 BETWEEN
MAPUNA LYNETTE TERESA TURNER
Plaintiff
AND
THE PUBLIC TRUST
Defendant
Hearing: On the papers Appearances:
M Reason for Plaintiff A Holden for Defendant
Judgment:
24 March 2020
JUDGMENT OF LANG J
[on costs]
This judgment was delivered by me on 24 March 2020 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………
Solicitors:
Nolan & Lu, Lawyers, Hamilton Wilson Harle, Auckland
M Reason, Te Aroha
TURNER v THE PUBLIC TRUST [2020] NZHC 622 [24 March 2020]
[1] On 7 February 2020 I issued a judgment in which I declined an application by Ms Turner for a freezing order and/or injunctive relief preventing the Public Trust from selling a property owned by the estate of the late Dennis Paul Samson.1 I am now required to fix costs in relation to the application.
[2] The Public Trust seeks an award of costs against Ms Turner on a category 2B basis together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. These would amount to approximately $11,310.91. The Public Trust has incurred total legal costs of approximately $34,000 dealing with this matter.
[3] The Public Trust was undoubtedly the successful party in this proceeding and would ordinarily be entitled to an award of costs against Ms Turner. The issue of costs is complicated in the present case by two factors. The first is that Ms Turner was the recipient of a grant of legal aid in relation to the application. The second is that Ms Turner is currently an undischarged bankrupt.
Costs against a legally aided party
[4] Section 45 of the Legal Services Act 2011 (the LSA) relevantly provides as follows:
45 Liability of aided person for costs
(1)If an aided person receives legal aid for civil proceedings, that person's liability under an order for costs made against him or her with respect to the proceedings must not exceed an amount (if any) that is reasonable for the aided person to pay having regard to all the circumstances, including the means of all the parties and their conduct in connection with the dispute.
(2)No order for costs may be made against an aided person in a civil proceeding unless the court is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances.
(3)In determining whether there are exceptional circumstances under subsection (2), the court may take account of, but is not limited to, the following conduct by the aided person:
(a)any conduct that causes the other party to incur unnecessary cost:
(b)any failure to comply with the procedural rules and orders of the court:
(c)any misleading or deceitful conduct:
(d)any unreasonable pursuit of 1 or more issues on which the aided person fails:
(e)any unreasonable refusal to negotiate a settlement or participate in alternative dispute resolution:
(f)any other conduct that abuses the…
Continue reading Turner v Public Trust
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Turner v Public Trust [2020] NZHC 622
- Case
- [2020] NZHC 622
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to decide on the appropriate costs to be awarded against Turner. The Public Trust, as the successful party, sought an award of costs against Turner on a category 2B basis, along with disbursements. Turner, who was the recipient of a grant of legal aid, argued that any costs awarded against her should be limited by the Legal Services Act 2011. The court needed to balance Turner's means, her conduct in the case, and the potential for her financial situation to change in the future.
Justice Lang found that Turner was the unsuccessful party in the proceeding and should ordinarily be liable for costs. However, the court considered Turner's receipt of legal aid and her status as an undischarged bankrupt. The court found that it was reasonable for Turner to pay costs on a category 2B basis, as her financial situation was likely to improve once her bankruptcy was resolved. The court also found that exceptional circumstances existed under the Legal Services Act, as Turner's conduct in the case had caused unnecessary costs for the Public Trust. Therefore, the court awarded costs against Turner on a category 2B basis, along with disbursements.
The court declined to make an order requiring the Official Assignee to pay the Public Trust's costs before distributing any surplus to Turner. The court found that such an order would be contrary to the Insolvency Act 2006 and would not be appropriate in this case. The Public Trust would need to pursue other means to recover the costs awarded against Turner.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.