Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation [2014] NZHC 3141 (10 December 2014)

Last Updated: 17 December 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2014-485-006017 [2014] NZHC 3141

BETWEEN	MAREE HOWARD Plaintiff
AND	ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	10 December 2014

_{COSTS JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J}

[1] On 3 October 2014 I issued a judgment striking out Mrs Howard’s application for judicial review to set aside an October 2010 notice issued by her accredited employer, NZ Post Ltd, under s 72 of the Accident Compensation Act

2001. I did so on the basis that that, and the associated issues she raised, had already been addressed by the Courts.

[2] Having succeeded in its application, Accident Compensation Corporation

(ACC) now applies for scale 2B costs of $13,814.99 to be paid by Mrs Howard.

[3] As the history of the matter, recorded at paragraph 13 of my judgment, shows, Mrs Howard – supported and represented by her husband Mr Howard, has pursued her complaint in an extended series of appeals and applications for special leave to appeal, including to each of this Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme

_Court.

HOWARD v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2014] NZHC 3141 [10 December 2014]

[4] I therefore have some sympathy with the Corporation’s proposition that here costs should, in the normal event, follow the outcome of the application on a scale basis. The other relevant principle here is that, so far as possible, the determination of costs should be predictable and expeditious. Those principles favour me ordering costs as sought by ACC.

[5] Mrs Howard opposes any award of costs. In her memorandum of

3 November 2014 she argues that the issues she raised were ones of public interest, she points to her limited personal means and repeats, by way of criticising my judgment (which of course she is perfectly entitled to do) the substance of her complaint.

[6] Mr and Mrs Howard have pursued a lengthy battle through the courts. They have had costs awarded against them on at least one occasion previously, in the Court of Appeal. At the same time, I accept their honesty and genuineness and that an award of the amount sought by ACC is a significant sum of money for people in their position.

[7] On that basis, and in terms of r 14.7(g) I have decided not to award costs as ACC seeks. At the same time, however, I think some award of costs is appropriate, given the outcome.

[8] I therefore order that Mrs Howard pays costs in the sum of $2,500 to ACC.

“Clifford J”

Solicitors:

McBride Davenport James, Solicitors, Wellington for respondent.

Copy to Mr and Mrs Howard, Ohura.