Edwards v District Court, Dunedin [2014] NZHC 94 (10 February 2014)

Last Updated: 20 March 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CIV-2013-412-000001 [2014] NZHC 94

BETWEEN JOHN ANTHONY EDWARDS Applicant

AND THE DISTRICT COURT, DUNEDIN First Respondent

AND THE DISTRICT COURT, OAMARU Second Respondent

AND WAITAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL Third Respondent

Hearing: 10 December 2013 (On the papers) Counsel: J A Edwards in person

P Gunn for First and Second Respondent

P G Hope for Third Respondent

Judgment: 10 February 2014

JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J

_{(RE: COSTS AND LEAVE TO FILE A PROCEEDING)}

Costs

[1] In a judgment dated 18 November 2013 I dismissed Mr Edwards’ application for judicial review. Costs were reserved and a timetable prescribed for the filing of memorandum. I have received and considered memoranda from the Council dated

20 November and 20 December 2013, and from Mr Edwards dated 29 November and 9 January 2014.

[2] The Council sought indemnity, increased or at least category 2B costs. Mr

_{Edwards filed a two page memorandum, largely devoted to a further proceeding}

EDWARDS v THE DISTRICT COURT, DUNEDIN [2014] NZHC 94 [10 February 2014]

which he seeks to file (a topic to which I will turn in a moment). In relation to costs his memorandum includes this:

My answer and submission is that it assuredly has not (the Council has not acted in good conscience and come to the Court with clean hands), and there has probably never existed a less deserving recipient of costs. I oppose absolutely the award of costs to the (Council).

[3] His second memorandum is in a similar vein. These assertions provide no answer to the costs application. The decision dismissing the judicial review application demonstrates it was without merit. Costs must follow the event.

[4] The only issue is the level of costs. The threshold for indemnity/increased costs is not quite met, and accordingly I award costs assessed on a 2B basis totalling

$11,144.00 as assessed in the second memorandum, together with disbursements as claimed, $319.53.

Leave to commence

[5] The substantive judgment in which the judicial review application was dismissed contained a direction that should Mr Edwards file a “Part 18” proceeding it should be received for filing only with the leave of a Judge. This direction was subject to the caveat that if such proceeding had already been filed (as at

18 November 2013) the direction did not apply.

[6] Mr Edwards’ memorandum in relation to costs states that the “Part 18” proceeding was presented for filing in the High Court at Dunedin in August 2013, but then returned to him on 4 September 2013 because a filing fee of $1,350 was required. Against this background Mr Edwards sought confirmation from me whether he could file the intended proceeding or not.

[7] Fortunately, he annexed a copy of the statement of claim dated 26 August

2013 to his memorandum. I have considered the contents of the intended statement of claim. It states that the proceeding is intended to be wholly within the equitable jurisdiction of the Court, but I found the pleaded allegations incomprehensible. But, it is evident that the statement of claim seeks to relitigate the same matters as were raised in the judicial review application. Further, the remedy sought is that the

judgments delivered by Judge Doherty on 1 March 2010 in relation to the Waitaki District Council’s claim be “set aside in their entirety”, together with all orders made in purported consequence of those judgments.

[8] I am satisfied that this intended statement of claim should not be received for filing. Since, as I understand from Mr Edwards’ memorandum the document was returned to him in September, leave of a Judge was required, but is hereby refused.

Solicitors:

P G Hope, Oamaru