IN THE Court of appeal OF new Zealand

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA	
 CA82/2023
 [2023] NZCA 191

	
BETWEEN	
FRANCO BELGIORNO-NETTIS
Applicant	
	
AND	
AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL
First Respondent	
	
AND	
AUCKLAND COUNCIL
Second Respondent	

Counsel:	
Applicant in person
N Copeland and F McKechnie for First Respondent
M Allan for Second Respondent	

Judgment:
(On the papers)	
25 May 2023 at 11.00 am	

JUDGMENT OF MILLER J
(Review of Registrar’s Decision)

The application for review is declined.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

[1]	The Registrar reduced, but did not dispense with, security for costs in this costs appeal.  Security was reduced because the appeal was to be decided on the papers.
[2]	Mr Belgiorno-Nettis has sought a review.
[3]	I have reviewed the Registrar’s reasons and adopt them.  The application for review has no merit.  Notably, ability to pay is not in question.  I do not accept that waiver is justified on public interest grounds.  The appeal is about costs.  It will turn principally on circumstances surrounding late disclosure of deliberative material in this case.
[4]	The application for review is declined.  Because this Court has now decided that the appeal is to receive an oral hearing, I direct that the Registrar is to revisit her decision to discount security.  She should fix it on the assumption that the Court will limit the time for oral argument to not more (and possibly less, depending on the view taken by the presiding Judge) than half a day.

Solicitors: 
Brookfields Lawyers, Auckland for First Respondent
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Second Respondent