Legal Research
Cases
Wang v District Court

Wang v District Court

Case [2015] NZHC 1611 10 July 2015

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-001825 [2015] NZHC 1611

UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

IN THE MATTER

of an application for judicial review

BETWEEN

SHEN WANG First Plaintiff

QUIONG YAO QIU Second Plaintiff

AND

THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND, SITTING AT THE NORTH SHORE AND AUCKLAND

First Defendant

TIAN HONG WANG Second Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

F C Deliu for Plaintiffs
No appearance by or on behalf of First and Second Defendants

Judgment:

10 July 2015

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 10 July 2015 at 2.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors / Counsel:

Dr F C Deliu, Auckland

WANG v THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND [2015] NZHC 1611 [10 July 2015]

Introduction

[1] On 6 November 2014, I issued judgment for the plaintiffs, allowing a judicial review of the North Shore District Court’s decision to accept charging documents issued by a private prosecutor, who is the second defendant, Mr Tianhong Wang.1
The District Court decision was correspondingly quashed.

[2] The judicial review was allowed on the basis that the charge was not a representative charge in terms of s 20(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, defects in the formal statements of Mr Wang and the lack of consideration of the position of the two defendants separately.

[3] The plaintiffs, Shen Wang and Qiong Yao Qiu now seek costs against the North Shore District Court, who did not defend the proceedings and abided the decision of this Court. They also seek costs against Mr Wang, who also abided the decision.

Submissions

Plaintiff ’s submissions

[4] While acknowledging the long line of authority which prevents an order for costs against a decision-maker who correctly abides by a decision, counsel for the plaintiff, Mr Deliu, submits that in the current case costs are justified because:

(a) This is the second time in a year that judicial review proceedings have been successfully brought against the Court;2

(b)The sheer number of errors by the Court were extraordinary and require accountability, including errors as to representative charging, declaration of truth, signing and dating, English transliteration, inadmissible hearsay, consideration of each defendant individually
and, possibly, the right to be heard; and

1 Wang v District Court [2014] NZHC 2756.
2 Wang v North Shore District Court [2013] NZHC 3126, [2014] NZAR 101.

(c) That the principle set out in Attorney-General v Chapman, that “remedial protection” is obtained through appellate recourse and complaints3 should apply equally to judicial review, as it is analogous to appellate recourse. If judicial accountability is best accomplished though further litigation, then there is no reason principally why the courts’ ancillary costs jurisdiction would not further accomplish this public policy goal. A costs award would to some extent remedy the plaintiffs’ financial losses and would send a message to the inferior
courts that the High Court will not countenance a plethora of errors.

[5] Mr Deliu…

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 Wang v District Court

Details

AGLC: Wang v District Court [2015] NZHC 1611
Case: [2015] NZHC 1611
Decision Date: 10 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the plaintiffs, Shen Wang and Qiong Yao Qiu, sought costs against the North Shore District Court and Tian Hong Wang, who did not defend the proceedings and abided by the Court's decision. The plaintiffs argued that the District Court had made multiple errors and that costs should be awarded to ensure judicial accountability. The court considered whether the high number of errors and the District Court's past mistakes warranted a costs award, but concluded that the errors did not amount to bad faith, perverse, or oppressive conduct. The court found that the District Court's decisions were made with a genuine belief in their correctness and did not meet the threshold for a costs award. Additionally, the court held that the second defendant, Mr Wang, was not liable for costs as he had abided by the Court's decision and did not adopt an unreasonable position.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for costs against both the District Court and Mr Wang. The court found that the plaintiffs' submissions did not meet the test set out in Coroner’s Court v Newton, which requires proving that a judicial officer has acted perversely, oppressively or in bad faith. The court also held that it was unfair to require Mr Wang to be liable for the costs of the proceeding as he had abided by the Court's decision and did not oppose the proceeding. The court concluded that costs should fall where they lie, and there was no basis for awarding costs against either the District Court or Mr Wang.

Orders