Young v National Standards Committee

[2019] NZHC 2779

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-1141

CIV-2018-404-1150 [2019] NZHC 2779

BETWEEN

JINYUE YOUNG

Appellant

AND

NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE

Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

Appellant in person

J Simpson for Respondent

Judgment:

30 October 2019

COSTS JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 October 2019 at 4.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ………………………….

Solicitors:           Meredith Connell, Auckland

YOUNG v NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE [2019] NZHC 2779 [30 October 2019]

[1]    I have before me an application for costs. In my substantive judgment,1 I dismissed Mr Young’s appeal against liability and sentence, and found that the Committee was entitled to costs.

[2]    The Committee seeks costs on a 2B basis which, technically, totals $26,983. However, the Committee’s actual costs amount to $16,512 (excluding GST). Accordingly, along with disbursement costs of $50 less GST, the Committee seeks costs totalling $16,544.50.

[3]    Mr Young seeks to relitigate the substantive decision in his costs memorandum. He also states the following in relation to costs:

Regarding the cost, I agree to transfer security for costs to the respondent who agreed to lower it from $1000 to $500. My wife is the major bread earner but now she is to take major cancer operation (medical report enclosed). If NZLS refuses to allow me to pay by instalments, I can only bankrupt.

Assessment

[4]    Costs normally follow the event. I can identify no reasons to depart from that starting point. Save in one potential respect, none of the express grounds for reduction in costs, specified in the High Court Rules, are engaged.2 Mr Young has identified financial hardship, but a bare allegation of financial hardship does not provide a sufficient basis for a reduction in an award of costs.3

[5] One aspect may, however, have warranted a discount on costs. The law applying to s 7(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 is not without some ambiguity.4 To the extent that the appeal required this ambiguity to be addressed, it arguably raised an issue of broader public interest.5 It is unnecessary for me, however, to make any final ruling on this point, because Mr Young’s conduct of the appeal also

1      Young v National Standards Committee [2019] NZHC 2268.

2      See High Court Rules 2016, r 14.7.

3      See HA v Refugee and Protection Officer [2018] NZHC 1011 at [15]; Te Whare O Te Kaitiaki Ngahere Inc v West Coast Regional Council [2014] NZHC 2969 at [16]; Gibson v Fisher CIV- 2006-404-103 (HC), 17 July 2007 at [9].

4      See discussion at [42]-[59] of the judgment.

5      As in Taylor v District Court at North Shore (No 2) HC Auckland CIV-2009-404-002350, 13 October 2010.

caused unnecessary cost and he did not act reasonably in the conduct of the proceeding.6

[6]    I am therefore satisfied that costs on a 2B basis would ordinarily be appropriate. However, as the actual costs incurred were less than this, I make an order for the actual costs and disbursements incurred of $16,544.50. There shall be an order accordingly.

6      See discussion at [103] of the judgment. See also Rule 14.7(e).