Wright v Attorney-General - [2020] NZHC 1166

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2015-404-2800

[2020] NZHC 1166

UNDER the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

BETWEEN

NICHOLAS DAVID WRIGHT

Plaintiff

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE

First Defendant

AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD

Second Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

Plaintiff in person

W R Potter and B Rorrison for the First Defendant
A M Adams and H H Ifwersen for the Second Defendant

Judgment:

29 May 2020

JUDGMENT OF GAULT J

(Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 May 2020 at 3:00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Parties / Solicitors:
The Plaintiff
Mr W R Potter and Ms B Rorrison, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland Ms A M Adams and Ms H H Ifwersen, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland

WRIGHT v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZHC 1166 [29 May 2020]

[1] In my judgment of 21 November 2019, I dismissed each defendant’s application for review of Associate Judge Bell’s decision in relation to security for costs.1 As I observed, I expected that as the plaintiff (Mr Wright) is self-represented there would be no issue as to costs.

The issues raised

[2] There was a delay before Mr Wright received the judgment, following which he filed a memorandum in relation to costs (and other matters). In essence, he stated that the parties had spent nearly six days of hearing time over a three year period addressing the Court on matters relating to security. He referred again to his submission that the unsuccessful security applications represented an attempt by the defendants to abuse the processes of the Court, by attempting to “bully” him into withdrawing these proceedings, and to drain the very limited resources available to him. He complained that he has been faced with a constant and one-sided threat of costs and has had costs awards unjustifiably made against him. As a self-litigant, he is unable to seek costs for what he describes as the outrageous actions of the Crown in pursuing its blinkered and abusive litigation strategy. He submitted this one-sided use of costs as an instrument of oppression, attempted denial of justice, and unjustifiable delay has been consistently indulged by the Court, notwithstanding the fact that the processes have been applied in denial of natural justice and therefore in direct breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). He also referred to the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He submitted that, by entertaining the defendants’ applications, and delaying justice in this matter for over three years, the Court has made itself complicit in this breach.

[3] Mr Wright seeks to have the Court lay down clear and unambiguous guidelines regarding the Crown’s use of security for costs against self-litigants, particularly in NZBORA cases, submitting there is an imbalance in power between the parties and inherent inequality before…

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 Wright v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Wright v Attorney-General [2020] NZHC 1166
Case: [2020] NZHC 1166
Decision Date: 29 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand Auckland registry was presented with a case between Nicholas David Wright, a self-represented litigant, and the Attorney-General, as representative of the New Zealand Police, along with the Auckland District Health Board. The case, Wright v Attorney-General, revolves around a dispute over costs and the use of security for costs by the defendants against the plaintiff. The plaintiff, Nicholas Wright, sought to challenge the defendants' use of security for costs, claiming it was an abuse of court processes and a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. He requested the court to lay down guidelines for the Crown's use of security for costs against self-litigants and for the court to issue a stay of existing costs orders obtained by the Crown against him. The court was required to decide whether the general principle that costs follow the event applies to successful lay litigants in the High Court, and if there was any basis for the court to provide a special category of costs awards to self-litigants.

The court's reasoning was based on the principle that costs follow the event, and that the unsuccessful party shall pay costs to the successful party, as prescribed by the High Court Rules 2016. The court found that the primary rule that a lay litigant in New Zealand is not entitled to recover costs against an unsuccessful party is a longstanding practice and does not undermine the principle of equity before the law. The court also considered the Supreme Court's decision in McGuire v Secretary for Justice, which highlighted the public policy justifications for the "primary rule" and the inhibiting effect of awarding costs against a losing party. The court declined to quantify a costs credit in favour of Mr Wright, as it would be in breach of the "primary rule." However, the court recorded its view in relation to the outcome of the relevant applications so it can be taken into account if and when costs are finally determined in the proceeding to the extent the judge considers appropriate.

The court ultimately decided that there is no order as to costs in relation to either the defendants' applications for security before Associate Judge Bell, or their applications for review of the Associate Judge's decision. However, the court reserved leave for Mr Wright to apply should enforcement of those awards become an issue before costs are finally determined.

Orders