Deliu v District Court at Wellington [2023] NZCA 268 (30 June 2023)

Last Updated: 3 July 2023

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA672/2022 [2023] NZCA 268

	BETWEEN	FRANCISC CATALIN DELIU Appellant
	AND	DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON First Respondent COURT OF APPEAL Second Respondent

Court:	Cooper P, Brown and Goddard JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person K Laurenson for Respondents
Judgment: (On the papers)	30 June 2023 at 9.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. The proceeding is remitted to the High Court.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Goddard J)

Background

[1] Dr Deliu appeals to this Court against a judgment of the High Court in which an award of costs was made against him (High Court costs judgment).^[1]

[2] A minute of Goddard J dated 4 May 2023 identified a number of concerns in relation to the High Court costs judgment. A telephone conference took place on 24 May 2023 to consider how the appeal should be progressed in light of those concerns.

[3] Following the minute and the telephone conference, Dr Deliu and counsel for the respondents have filed a joint memorandum dated 27 June 2023 recording that they agree that the High Court costs judgment should be set aside, and the matter remitted to the High Court.

[4] We consider that the orders proposed are appropriate. There are difficulties of both principle and practicality in a senior court being named as a party in proceedings before the High Court. Those difficulties are exacerbated where the High Court is asked to make an order granting relief, such as an award of costs, in favour of an appellate court. The almost inevitable result of such an order being made is the thoroughly unsatisfactory scenario that presents itself in the present case of this Court being named as a respondent in an appeal before this Court. That scenario presents insuperable difficulties as a matter of principle, and is unworkable from a practical perspective. The order for costs made by the High Court, which was expressed to be made in favour of both respondents including this Court, should not have been made and should be set aside.

[5] The joint memorandum does not address the question of costs. We proceed on the basis that the issue of costs does not arise in circumstances where the filing fee for the appeal was waived and Dr Deliu is representing himself. We therefore make no order as to costs.

Result

[6] The appeal is allowed.

[7] The judgment of the High Court is set aside. The proceeding is remitted to the High Court.



Crown Law Office | Te Tari Ture o te Karauna, Wellington for Respondents

---

^[1] Deliu v District Court at Wellington [2022] NZHC 2917.