IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE	
CIV-2019-485-000611
[2021] NZHC 4	

UNDER	the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016	
IN THE MATTER OF	review of decision made by various police officers	
BETWEEN	ALISOHN JOAN FIELDING
Applicant	
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent	

Hearing:	[On the Papers]	
Appearances:	A J Fielding in Person
S B McCusker for Respondent	
Judgment:	11 January 2021	

JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS J
[re Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 January 2021 at 12.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

 Solicitors:	Luke Cunningham Clere, Wellington

 Copy To:	A J Fielding, Paraparaumu

FIELDING v POLICE [2021] NZHC 4 [11 January 2021]

[1]	In my judgment dated 16 October 2020, I dismissed Ms Fielding’s application for judicial review.1 The New Zealand Police seek an order for scale costs and disbursements of $22,710.59.

[2]	Ms Fielding opposes the award of costs. She has filed three memoranda in opposition. In essence, she submits that the application for costs should be stayed or postponed on the basis of her appeal to the Court of Appeal. Alleged errors with my judgment and the arguments to be advanced on appeal are canvassed in the other memoranda filed.

[3]	An appeal to the Court of Appeal does not provide a good reason for the quantification of costs to be delayed. Quantification allows both parties certainty as to the sums due and owing. Whether the costs judgment is enforced immediately is a matter for the New Zealand Police.

[4]	The calculation of costs according to schedule 2B of the High Court Rules 2016 is appropriate in this case. The proceeding was of average complexity. There is also some merit to the respondent’s submission that there would be grounds to seek increased costs for some of the steps taken in the proceeding. The  claim  for schedule 2B costs for all steps taken in the proceeding is reasonable in those circumstances.

[5]	The steps for which costs have been claimed are appropriate. Costs have not been claimed for all steps, and the costs for others have been properly calculated and claimed.

[6]	The costs and disbursements associated with the preparation of a common bundle of documents are also properly sought. Ms Fielding ultimately accepted the respondent’s offer to file a common bundle of documents that complied with the High Court Rules for the purposes of the hearing. The costs of preparing that common bundle are reasonably claimed.

1	Fielding v Police [2020] NZHC 2728.

[7]	Accordingly, I award costs and disbursements to the respondent in the sum of
$22,710.59.

Edwards J