Wigg v Racing Integrity Board - [2023] NZHC 2219

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-769

[2023] NZHC 2219

UNDER the Racing Industry Act 2020

IN THE MATTER

of a review of a decision of the Racing Integrity Board dated 10 May 2022

BETWEEN

SHERYL LOUISE WIGG

Applicant

AND

RACING INTEGRITY BOARD

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

P J Dale KC for Applicant D B Dow for Respondent

Judgment:

16 August 2023

COSTS JUDGMENT OF PETERS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Peters on 16 August 2023 at 4.30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ...................................

Solicitors: KooTelle Lawyers, Auckland

Meredith Connell, Auckland

Counsel: P J Dale KC, Auckland

WIGG v RACING INTEGRITY BOARD [2023] NZHC 2219 [16 August 2023]

Introduction

[1]I issued a judgment in this matter on 14 March 2023.1

[2] The parties have been unable to agree on costs. The applicant now seeks an award of costs on a 2B basis and any necessary disbursements:

(a)on her application for stay, which Woolford J granted on 30 May 2022; and

(b)in the substantive proceeding which I determined.

The costs sought under these two heads total $23,541.50.

[4]The applicant also seeks costs of $1,500 on her application for costs.

Application for stay

[5] The applicant commenced this proceeding on 13 May 2022. By her proceeding, the applicant sought review of a penalty that had been imposed on her by the respondent, the Racing Integrity Board (“RIB”). The penalty included a substantial period of disqualification.

[6] The applicant applied for a stay of the penalty pending determination of her proceeding. The RIB opposed the application for stay, which Woolford J granted on 30 May 2022.

Substantive proceeding

[7] As counsel for the applicant, Mr Dale KC, submits, the applicant was also the successful party on the substantive proceeding. The RIB does not dispute this.

[8] Given that, and on usual principles, the applicant is thus entitled to costs and disbursements on both her application and the substantive proceeding.

1 Wigg v Racing Integrity Board [2023] NZHC 497.

Submission for the RIB

[9] Counsel for the RIB, Mr Dow, submits that I ought to reduce the costs the applicant claims by approximately 50 per cent, to a round sum of $10,000.

[10] Mr Dow submits that I may do so pursuant to any or all of High Court Rules 2016, rr 14.7(d), (e), and (g), which provide:

14.7 Refusal of, or reduction in, costs

Despite rules 14.2 to 14.5, the court may ... reduce the costs otherwise payable under those rules if—

...

(d)although the party claiming costs has succeeded overall, that party has failed in relation to a cause of action or issue which significantly increased the costs of the party opposing costs; or

(e)the proceeding concerned a matter of public interest, and the party opposing costs acted reasonably in the conduct of the proceeding; or

...

(g) some other reason exists which justifies the court refusing…

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 Wigg v Racing Integrity Board 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: [2023] NZHC 2219
Decision Date: 16 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicant, Sheryl Louise Wigg, sought review of a penalty imposed by the Racing Integrity Board (RIB) under the Racing Industry Act 2020. The proceedings were before Justice Peters of the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The primary dispute was over the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to her application for a stay of the penalty and the substantive review of the penalty decision.

The legal issues the court needed to address were whether the applicant was entitled to the full costs she claimed under High Court Rules 2016, and whether she could recover costs for the application to determine those costs. The RIB argued for a reduction of the costs, citing potential factors such as the applicant’s failure on certain issues, the public interest nature of the proceeding, and other reasons under the High Court Rules.

Justice Peters found that the RIB’s arguments for reducing costs were not applicable. The court noted that the applicant did not fail on any issues but rather succeeded on the substantive review. The court also found that the proceeding did not involve a matter of public interest sufficient to warrant a reduction in costs, and that the source of the RIB’s funding did not justify a reduction under the rules. Consequently, the court ruled that the applicant was entitled to the full costs claimed, plus disbursements, and additionally awarded costs for the application to determine those costs.

In summary, the court awarded the applicant costs on a 2B basis for both the application for stay and the substantive proceeding, along with all usual disbursements, and further awarded $1,500 for costs associated with the application to determine costs.

Orders