Costs awarded

Damages Awarded by the Human Rights Review Tribunal under Human Rights Act 1993, Privacy Act 1993 and Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994

Decision

Notes

Award

Jans v   Winter

[2003] NZHRRT 21(external link)

Privacy   Act access to information case – files lost by defendant before hearing – for   that and other reasons relating to the way the litigation had been conducted   by the defendant the Tribunal directed defendant to pay all of the   plaintiff’s actual and reasonable expenses amounting to about $1,800   (although note award not specifically quantified). One day hearing. Costs   award affirmed on appeal to High Court: Winter v Jans (Hamilton High   Court, CIV 2003-419-854, 6 April 2004 per Paterson J)

(say)   $1,800

(27   June 2003)

Ram   vKMart NZ

[2003] NZHRRT 27(external link)

Unsuccessful   Privacy Act Principle 11 case - two-day hearing

$3,000

(6   August 2003)

CD v   Hawkes Bay District Health Board

[2003] NZHRRT 31(external link)

Privacy   Act case – access to records, but requests predated the Act – plaintiff   warned before hearing that no basis for claim - four-day hearing – actual   costs incurred by defendant exceeded $25,000, including costs of expert   evidence that was required.

$10,000  

(29   October 2003)

Cobb v   W & H Newspapers Ltd

[2003] NZHRRT 36(external link)

Two-day   hearing – alleged age discrimination - costs awarded on reasonable   contribution basis.

$3,000

(30   October 2003)

Horne v   Bryant

[2003] NZHRRT 36(external link)

Plaintiff   abandoned claim on eve of substantive hearing – defendant’s preparation   complete – actual costs of $6,682.50 had been incurred (excluding costs on   the costs argument) – Tribunal awarded reasonable contribution of $4,400   uplifted by $1,000 to reflect last minute abandonment of claim, plus a   further $1,000 in respect of the argument on costs (which included issues   relating to the particular position of the Director of Human Rights   Proceedings).

$6,400

(18   December 2003)

Ngapera   v Reddick

[2004] NZHRRT 5(external link)

Undefended   sexual harassment claim – hearing proceeded as a formal proof, lasting less   than a day.

$2,000

(15   March 2004)

Shiu v   Mohammed Nasev

[2004] NZHRRT 17(external link)

One-day   hearing of claim of sexual harassment under the Human Rights Act – costs   awarded to plaintiff who obtained declaration but no damages.

$2,000

(10 May   2004)

Plumtree   v Attorney-General

[2004] NZHRRT 25(external link)

Privacy   Act claim relating to army records – plaintiff successful but represented   self – award of costs to cover out of pocket expenses only.

$1,269.64

(24 May   2004)

Williams   v Department of Corrections

[2004] NZHRRT 28(external link)

Two-day   hearing; note the award was for all that was claimed, because the amount   claimed was for disbursements and only $525 on account of legal costs for the   whole of the two day hearing, and all attendances before that.

$1,529.86

(30   June 2004)

Tahiata   v Nicholson & Anor

[2004] NZHRRT 29(external link)

Award   after two day hearing about alleged racial and other discrimination, but note   the award also includes costs in respect of various ‘on the papers’   determinations as well – actual costs of $51,331.91 had been incurred.

$8,000

(8 July   2004)

Henderson   v CIR

[2004] NZHRRT 42(external link)

Effectively   a three-day hearing, although the days were spread over several months –   actual costs incurred by the successful defendant were in excess of $62,500 –   note Tribunal declined to apply the District Court Scale.

$12,500

(13   August 2004)

Marino   v Department of Corrections

[2004] NZHRRT 46(external link)

One-day   hearing – award effectively assessed as reasonable contribution only.

$1,990

(13   September 2004)

DP v A   (No.2)

[2004] NZHRRT 51(external link)

Three-day   hearing under Health and Disability Commissioner Act – had been preceded by   issues relating to name suppression as well – total costs incurred by   plaintiff were $30,386.

$12,500

(22   November 2004)

DP v DG   (Fan)

[2005] NZHRRT 18(external link)

Award   made in respect of hearings under Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994   that lasted for a total of 8 days, although note two cases were heard at the   same time and there was a mix of success and failure, including a decision by   the plaintiff to abandon one particular claim at the hearing - – total costs   incurred by plaintiff in respect of successful claim had been in excess of   $52,000.

$22,000

(28   June 2005)

Yeo v   McDowell

[2006] NZHRRT 11(external link)

One-day   hearing of privacy claim - a pre-hearing offer of settlement by plaintiff   ought to have been accepted by defendants – circumstances close to justifying   full indemnity award - plaintiff legally aided with actual costs over $4,000.

$2,500

(29   March 2006)

Smith v   Air New Zealand

[2006] NZHRRT 13(external link)

Four-day   hearing of alleged discrimination under the Human Rights Act – note issues as   to whether this was a ‘test case’; also issues in relation to part-success   and cost warnings – total costs incurred by defendant in excess of $60,000 –   costs of $15,000 awarded with an earlier award of $1500 for costs on an   interlocutory application confirmed, giving a total of $16,500 in the   litigation – note costs award upheld on appeal see Smith vAir New   Zealand (Wellington High Court, CIV 2005-485-2198, 15 December 2008 per   Clifford J).

$16,500

(4   April 2006)

Louw v   Auckland District Health Board

[2006] NZHRRT 27(external link)

Matter   set down for hearing, but plaintiff failed to appear at hearing and thereby   effectively abandoned claim – actual costs had been incurred by defendant in excess   of $12,000 - award of $4,500 for preparation etc was increased by $2,000 to   reflect the way the case had been abandoned.

 

$6,500

(16   June 2006)

Stevenson   v Hastings District Council

[2006] NZHRRT 32(external link)

One-day   hearing under Privacy Act – total costs incurred by successful defendant of   $20,544.57 – reasonable contribution only

$3,500

(21   August 2006)

Lehmann   v CanWest Radioworks Ltd

[2006] NZHRRT 47(external link)

Two and   a half-day hearing including written submissions filed after the hearing as   well - also note that one claim under one of the Privacy Principles was   effectively abandoned by the plaintiff at the hearing – actual costs incurred   by defendant in excess of $26,850 – significant interlocutory processes   before hearing but plaintiff not to responsible for those – plaintiff did   succeed on one point at issue.

$7,500

(12   December 2006)

EFG v   Commissioner of Police

[2006] NZHRRT 48(external link)

The   plaintiff had represented himself in the proceedings, with the only question   being as to his out-of-pocket expenses for the hearing itself. In fact the   Police had paid many of those expenses in order to have the hearing at a   venue that was convenient to the Police. The hearing itself occupied five   days but for these reasons the award was effectively limited to reimbursement   of a few outstanding out of pocket expenses.

$1,000

(21   December 2006)

Herron   v Speirs Group Ltd

[2006] NZHRRT 49(external link)

Costs   of $3,000 awarded on a reasonable contribution basis to the date of a   ‘without prejudice save as to costs’ offer, and then a further $32,503.82 on   a full indemnity basis for the period thereafter. Two day hearing in the   Tribunal. On appeal, the Tribunal’s approach to costs was substantially   upheld, but the High Court adjusted the total sum downwards so that it was   limited to 85% of costs after the ‘without prejudice save as to costs’ offer   (note the figure in this table is the adjusted High Court figure).

$30,628

(21   December 2006)

Director   of Health & Disability Proceedings v Peters

[2007] NZHRRT 1(external link)

This   Health and Disability Commissioner Act case occupied four days of hearing.   The defendant was legally aided, the successful plaintiff asked the Tribunal   to assess what costs would have been awarded in the absence of legal aid.

$15,000

(19   January 2007)

Director   of Human Rights Proceedings v Police

[2007] NZHRRT 9(external link)

Two-day   hearing – case ‘unremarkable’ from a costs perspective.

$3,750

(21 May   2007)

Director   of Proceedings under the Health & Disability Commissioner Act v Kaur

[2007] NZHRRT 20(external link)

Two and   a half-day hearing. The defendant was legally aided, but the Tribunal was   asked to assess costs that would have been awarded had there been no legal   aid.

 

 

 

$7,500

(19   October 2007)

Haydock   v Gilligan Sheppard

[2008] NZHRRT 2(external link)

Privacy   Act claim - despite an early offer of settlement that was not made on a   ‘without prejudice’ basis, the successful defendant did not ask for indemnity   costs – there was however a significant issue as to whether and to what   extent the plaintiff should be regarded as having been legally aided in the   proceedings (and thus protected by s.40 of the Legal Services Act 2000 as it   stood before amendment in March 2007) – hearing took four days although there   had been significant interlocutories and the hearing was spread over a long   period.

$20,000

(5   February 2008)

Director   of Human Rights Proceedings v Police

[2008] NZHRRT 5(external link)

Privacy   issues – 2 day hearing – total costs incurred by defendant were $12,351.39

$3,250

(31   March 2008)

Director   of Proceedings under Health & Disability Commissioner Act v Mogridge

[2008] NZHRRT 9(external link)

The   case involved the hearing of several different claims against the same   defendant – five days – preceded by various pre-hearing issues that had   required determination – total costs incurred by the plaintiff had come to   $55,168.25.

$22,500

(9 May   2008)

Reid v   NZ Fire Service Commission and Anor.

[2008] NZHRRT 18(external link)

Privacy   Act claim - two days of hearing, one at which the plaintiff was not present.   Costs were sought by the successful first defendant only; total costs   incurred of just over $11,000.

$3,000

(14   August 2008)

Director   of Proceedings under the Health & Disability Commissioner Act v O’Malley

[2009] NZHRRT 2(external link)

This   was a matter dealt with by way of formal proof - defendant did not appear at   the scheduled hearing - there had, however, been a number of preliminary   arguments which delayed the matter and compounded costs.

$10,000

(2   February 2009)

Holmes   v Police

[2009] NZHRRT 20(external link)

Hearing   took less than a day, but there had been a pre-hearing “without prejudice   save as to costs” offer which ought to have been accepted.

$5,500

(30   July 2009)

Kaiser   v Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry & Ors [2009] NZHRRT 22(external link)

One day   hearing (plaintiff attended by telephone) – costs actually incurred by   defendants in this part of the case $13,421.23 – case required significant   attendances both before and after hearing.

$6,000

(5   August 2009)

Kaiser   v Department of Labour [2009] NZHRRT 23(external link)

Same   hearing as above – essentially same considerations, but actual costs incurred   by Labour Department were only $9,200.

$4,500

(4   September 2009)

World   Vision v Tamu [2009] NZHRRT 25(external link)

Formal   proof matter lasting less than a day – application under s.92B(4) of the   Human Rights Act 1993 to enforce a settlement agreement – no appearance by   defendant – Tribunal satisfied plaintiff should never have been put to   expense of filing the claim – full solicitor/client costs of $7,469.30   awarded.

$7,469.30

(5   October 2009)

Orlov v   Ministry of Justice & Attorney-General [2009] NZHRRT 28(external link)

One day   hearing of application to strike out on grounds claim did not disclose a   tenable cause of action – application successful – Tribunal noted that the   plaintiff had insisted on a vivavoce hearing when matter could   have been dealt with on the papers – also plaintiff should have known better   than to bring claim; although award tempered to an extent because human   rights-related issues raised – actual costs of $17,824.45 – reasonable   contribution fixed at $7,500.

$7,500

(14   October 2009)

Coates   v Koller & Williams [2009] NZHRRT 32(external link)

Proceedings   which should never have been brought giving rise to significant costs including   attendance at two day hearing – plaintiffs refused to discontinue   notwithstanding clear warning about costs in relation to Williams – indemnity   costs to Williams for all costs incurred thereafter – reasonable contribution   costs to Koller, but amount set to reflect various criticisms of plaintiff’s   conduct of the litigation

$18,500   to Williams

$7,500   to Koller

(7   December 2009)

Director   of Human Rights Proceedings v QD [2010] NZHRRT 10(external link)

Two day   hearing – plaintiff successful – quantum of costs following that event was   agreed between counsel.

$7,500

(4 May   2010)

Z v   Police Commissioner [2010] NZHRRT 17(external link)

Two day   hearing – costs reduced because not all of plaintiff’s evidence accepted –   total costs incurred by plaintiff only $6,271.00 in any event.

$3,000

(9   September 2010)

Cameron   v Police [2010] NZHRRT 18(external link)

Claim   by successful defendant for costs after incurring actual costs of $60,848.66   – reasonable contribution – award tempered by fact that although plaintiff had   failed to show relevant harm, a breach of privacy principle 8 had been   established – against that costs increased because the claim was more   difficult to respond to as a result of plaintiff’s delays in bringing it –   hearing occupied 3 days.

$20,000

(24 September   2010 – this award is under appeal)

NG v   Commissioner of Police [2010] NZHRRT 21(external link)

Award   to successful defendant after a one day hearing – total costs of just over   $19,000 incurred, but defendant only sought an award of $3,750 on a   reasonable contribution basis

$3,750.00

(15   November 2010)

EN v   KIC & The Partnership [2010] NZHRRT 25(external link)

Successful   sexual harassment claim – three and a half day hearing – note that   disbursements alone amounted to $7,500 due to remote location of hearing.

$15,000

(26   November 2010)

Director   of Health & Disability Proceedings v Nikau [2010] NZHRRT 26(external link)

Undefended   claim for breaches of the Health & Disability Commissioner Act – formal   proof – damages including exemplary damages awarded – total costs incurred in   excess of $15,000 but plaintiff asked for award of $7,500 only

$7,500

(14   December 2010)

Director   of Human Rights Proceedings v Grupen [2011] NZHRRT 3(external link)

Claim   for indemnity costs after a two day hearing, although there had also been a   number of matters that were dealt with ‘on the papers’ (including final   submissions after the hearing) – indemnity costs awarded after defendant   refused Calderbank offer

$12,000

(9   February 2011 – this award is under appeal)

Director   of Human Rights Proceedings v Henderson [2011] NZHRRT 10(external link)

PA - successful   defendant incurred actual costs of $54,000 to defend claim – two day hearing,   although extended hours on the second day – claim for reasonable contribution   cost down to date of Calderbank offer then indemnity costs thereafter   – indemnity costs declined, but reasonable contribution assessed to take into   account factors such as failure to settle.

$18,000

(24   March 2011)

Heather   v IDEA Services Ltd [2012] NZHRRT 11

HRA - self-represented   plaintiff – discontinuance before hearing – costs of $4,000 sought by first   defendants – discretion to award costs not to be exercised in a way which may   discourage individuals from bringing claims.

Costs   refused (23 May 2012)

Director   of Human Rights Proceedings v INS Restorations Ltd [2012] NZHRRT 18

PA –   one day hearing – no appearance by defendant – circumstances of fraud.

$3,750   (23 August 2012)

Sionepulu   v Downer NZ Ltd [2012] NZHRRT 22

HRA - one   day hearing – D1 claimed $6,750 (actual $20,000) and D2 claimed $3,750 –   proceedings misconceived & baseless but plaintiff herself not responsible   for conduct of case by husband.

Costs refused   (8 October 2012)

Director   of Human Rights Proceedings v Hamilton [2012] NZHRRT 24

PA –   two day hearing – no defence – needless waste of time of plaintiff and of   Tribunal.

$7,500   (1 November 2012)

Steele   v Board of Trustees of Salisbury School [2012] NZHRRT 26

PA - two   day hearing – finding that privacy interfered with – declaration withheld   owing to plaintiff’s conduct.    Defendant’s costs $47,000 – though no remedy granted plaintiff had   good grounds for bringing proceedings.

Costs   refused (23 November 2012)

Koyama   v New Zealand Law Society [2013] NZHRRT 22

PA -   three telephone conferences, a preliminary ruling on a recusal application   and a final decision upholding NZLS submission that HRRT had no jurisdiction   – plaintiff responsible for unnecessarily burdensome and intensive process –   NZLS sought reasonable contribution of $18,000 (actual $26,000)

 

$8,000   (28 May 2013)

Haupini   v SRCC Holdings Ltd [2013] NZHRRT 23

HRA - plaintiff   represented by Director of Human Rights Proceedings – three day hearing –   claim by successful defendant for indemnity costs of $40,495.00 – declined   but reasonable contribution assessed – obiter comments on costs when   plaintiff represented by Director

 

$15,000   (28 May 2013)

ABC v XYZ (Costs)[2013] NZHRRT 27

HDCA –   plaintiff self-represented – three day hearing – claim dismissed after   adverse credibility finding – successful defendant claimed $34,526.50 –   plaintiff acknowledged bringing of proceedings a mistake.

$8,000 (19 August 2013)

Meek v Ministry of Social Development [2013]   NZHRRT 28

HRA –   plaintiff self-represented – two day hearing – claim dismissed – not an   appropriate case for costs – good faith not seriously challenged – fragile state   of health – plaintiff in need of understanding and compassion.

Costs   refused (16 September   2013)

Rafiq v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Costs)   [2013] NZHRRT 30

PA –   plaintiff self-represented – did not appear at the hearing – finding that he   had clearly and egregiously breached the standards to be expected of a   litigant and therefore to be denied a declaration – successful defendant   incurred fees of $17,540.84 plus disbursements of $644.67 but indemnity costs   not sought – defendant sought $8,560 and disbursements of $644.67.

$9,204.67   (18 September 2013)

Rafiq v Commissioner of Police (Costs) [2013]   NZHRRT 31

PA –   plaintiff self-represented – did not appear at the hearing – finding that   plaintiff had pursued tactics to ensure proceedings as difficult and   protracted as he could make them – rejection of reasonable and responsible   settlement offer – successful defendant incurred fees of $25,268.63 plus   disbursements of $502.23 but indemnity costs not sought – defendant sought   $13,130 and disbursements of $502.23.

$13,632.23   (18 September 2013)

Rafiq v MBIE (Costs) [2013] NZHRRT 32

PA –   plaintiff self-represented – did not appear at the hearing – MBIE represented   by in-house litigation solicitor – $5,000 sought as a reasonable contribution   – indemnity costs could have been justified but were not sought – a clear   case in which increased costs were justified - $5,000 possibly too modest.

$5,000   (18 September 2013)

Rafiq v Department of Internal Affairs (Costs)   [2013] NZHRRT 33

PA –   plaintiff self-represented – did not appear at the hearing – defendant   represented by in-house litigation solicitor – $2,500 sought as a reasonable   contribution – indemnity costs could have been justified but were not sought   – a clear case in which increased costs were justified - $2,500 possibly too   modest.

$2,500   (18 September 2013)

Geary v ACC (Costs) [2013] NZHRRT [39]

PA –   plaintiff legally aided – four day hearing – post-hearing submissions   requested by Tribunal – plaintiff successful on nearly every aspect of his   case – ACC’s own legal costs in excess of $50,000 – plaintiff’s legal aid   costs $18,000 with disbursements of $612.95.

$18,612.95   (14 November 2013)

Nakarawa v AFFCO New Zealand Ltd (Costs) [2014]   NZHRRT 15

HRA (appeal   filed 26 March 2014) – plaintiff represented – one day hearing followed by   further attendances – plaintiff comprehensively successful but proceedings   not inherently complex – notional claim of $7,500.

 

 

 

 

$4,500   (17 April 2014)

DML v Montgomery (Costs) [2014] NZHRRT 18

HRA   (appeal filed 13 March 2014; appeal discontinued on 9 June 2014) – plaintiff represented by   Director of Human Rights Proceedings – three day hearing – plaintiff awarded   declaration together with damages of $25,000.    Restraining and training orders made against defendants – no   particular circumstances of complexity and significance – Director sought   average award of $3,750 per day.

$11,250   (6 May 2014)

Andrews v Commissioner of Police (Costs) [2014]   NZHRRT 31

PA – (appeal   dismissed in Commissioner of Police v   Andrews [2015] NZHC 745) two day hearing – plaintiff self-represented and   serving custodial sentence – test case – plaintiff wholly unsuccessful –   benefit of decision to the advantage of the Police – actual costs $21,000 –   between $7,500 and $10,000 sought from plaintiff as a reasonable   contribution.

Costs   refused (5 August 2014)

Director of Proceedings v Nelson (Costs) [2014]   NZHRRT 33

HDCA –   five day hearing – eight breaches of Code or Rights alleged (21 particulars)   – only one breach established – declaration of breach but damages refused –   defendant on civil legal aid – Director not awarded costs – defendant seeking   $10,000 plus $3,152 expert witness fee – awarded $5,000 costs comprising   $3,152 for expert and the balance underlining duplication and overcharging   factors.

$5,000   (11 August 2014)

NOP & TUV v Chief Executive, Ministry of   Business, Innovation and Employment (Costs) [2014] NZHRRT 36

PA –   five day hearing – each party enjoying a measure of success and of failure –   plaintiffs seeking $2,000 (actual $23,000) and defendant seeking between   $7,500 and $10,000 – procedural history discounted as each side bore a   measure of blame– novel point of some significance in the administration of   the immigration legislation – analogy with public interest litigation pursued   reasonably.

Costs   refused to both parties (12 August 2014)

Gravatt v Bulmer (Costs) [2014] NZHRRT 42

HDCA –   plaintiff self-represented – Tribunal giving notice of jurisdiction issue –   defendant taking jurisdiction point – papers hearing resulting in statement   of claim being struck out – successful defendant incurred fees of $12,057.86   – sought $3,600 – case arising out of tragic events and plaintiff   establishing strong compassionate grounds.

$1,500   (10 September 2014)

Director   of Human Rights Proceedings v Valli and Hughes[2014] NZHRRT 58

PA –   half day hearing – defendants did not participate – counsel for Director   required to travel from Wellington to Invercargill – sought $1,420.50   disbursements together with $1,875 for the hearing.

$3,295.50   (15 December 2014)

Meulenbroek   v Vision Antenna Systems Ltd (Costs) [2015] NZHRRT 3

HRA –   plaintiff represented by Director of Human Rights Proceedings – four day   hearing – plaintiff successful in every respect – two Calderbank offers by Director should have been accepted –   evidence produced in support of defence fell well short of satisfying the   civil standard of proof – Director seeking $13,125.00 hearing fee, $3,689.12   travel and accommodation costs for counsel in Invercargill and $812.00 travel   costs for witness.

$17,626.12   (19 February 2015)

Director   of Human Rights Proceedings v Schubach [2015] NZHRRT 4

PA –   plaintiff represented by Director of Human Rights Proceedings – one day   hearing – plaintiff successful in every respect – defendant’s challenge to   jurisdiction rejected – defendant did not otherwise participate in or attend   hearing.

$3,750   (19 February 2015)

Satnam   Singhv Shane Singh and Scorpion Liquor   (2006) Ltd[2015] NZHRRT 8

HRA –   plaintiff represented by Director of Human Rights Proceedings – one day   hearing – plaintiff successful in every respect – defendants did not participate   in or attend hearing. [Decision   set aside on 2 June 2015 and re-hearing ordered]

$3,750   (9 March 2015)

Taylor   v Orcon Ltd (Costs) [2015] NZHRRT 32

PA –   plaintiff represented – one day hearing – plaintiff successful in every   respect – claim of $7,519.12 inclusive of disbursements.

$5,500   (23 July 2015)

Director   of Human Rights Proceedings v Crampton (Costs) [2015] NZHRRT 39

PA –   defendant on legal aid – hearing 2.5 days – plaintiff successful in every   respect – claim of $3,937.50 for pre-legal aid period and a “but for legal   aid” order for $8,257.90 sought for legal aid period.

Costs   refused and “but for legal aid” order refused (9 September 2015)

Holmes   v Housing New Zealand Corporation (Costs) [2015] NZHRRT 42

PA (appeal   dismissed 26 November 2015) – plaintiff self-represented – two day hearing –   plaintiff awarded declaration of interference with privacy but only small   amount of damages – claim for $150 disbursements.

$100   (11 September 2015)

McClelland   v Schindler Lifts NZ Ltd [2015] NZHRRT 45

HRA –   plaintiff represented by lay agent – plaintiff successful in every respect –   claim for disbursements of $283.94

$283.94   (9 October 2015)

Scarborough   v Kelly Services (NZ) Ltd (Costs) [2016] NZHRRT 3

HRA –   plaintiff self-represented – two day hearing – plaintiff unsuccessful –   plaintiff suffering from mental disability – $10,500 claimed by first   defendant

Costs   refused (24 February 2016)

McCreath   v Attorney-General (Costs) [2016] NZHRRT 4

HRA –   plaintiff self-represented – serving custodial sentence – claim withdrawn two   days before hearing – plaintiff recidivist dishonesty offender with no   possibility of paying order – $5,000 claimed by defendant

Costs   refused (24 February 2016)

Sansom   v Department of Internal Affairs [2016] NZHRRT 17

PA – plaintiff   self-represented – three day hearing – each party successful in part

Costs   refused (11 May 2016)

Lohr v   Accident Compensation Corporation (Costs) [2016] NZHRRT 36

PA –   plaintiff self-represented – two day hearing – defendant successfully discharged   burden of proving the withheld information fell within the exceptions in ss   27(1)(c) and 29(1)(a) - $15,000 claimed by defendant

Costs   refused (17 November 2016)

This page was last updated: