Misconduct case arose from online posts that could allegedly discredit nursing profession
In a case involving alleged professional misconduct, New Zealand’s High Court has found no reason to depart from the general rule that a court would fix and award costs as they arose rather than deferring the question of costs.
In Turner v Professional Conduct Committee of the Nursing Council of New Zealand, [2025] NZHC 1420, the appellant was a registered nurse who made multiple Facebook posts in 2020 and 2021 on Muslims, refugees, ethnic minorities, gender-diverse people, and the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In March 2024, the New Zealand Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal determined that the appellant’s posts amounted to professional misconduct and would likely discredit the nursing profession.
On appeal, the appellant challenged the tribunal’s decision. She alleged that:
On 12 February 2025, the court dismissed the appeal and every ground on which the appellant relied. The court ruled that the appeal lacked merit, and costs should follow the event. The appellant applied for leave to bring another appeal to the New Zealand Court of Appeal.
The parties failed to agree on the appropriate cost amount. The respondent, the Nursing Council of New Zealand’s Professional Conduct Committee, requested scale costs totalling $14,579 on a 2B basis.
The appellant’s counsel agreed with the respondent’s calculation of scale costs of the appeal. However, the appellant’s side argued that deferring the cost award would serve the interests of justice, efficiently use resources, and offer the appeal court an opportunity to deal with the appellant’s application seeking leave.
The respondent’s counsel alleged that costs should follow the event as usual because the court lacked any basis for deferral.
The High Court of New Zealand awarded the respondent costs amounting to $14,579. The court noted that, under the law, there was a general presumption against deferral even in cases where an appeal had been lodged.
In its judgment, the court saw no grounds to defer the cost award or the payment of costs until the appeal court ruled on the appellant’s leave application.
The judgment noted that the parties did not dispute the amount involved in this case, and that the court could reverse the cost award if the appellant acquired leave and emerged victorious in her appeal.
