Ruling finds it unlikely any lawyer would have urged plaintiff to proceed
New Zealand’s High Court has awarded costs of $4,849.50 against a plaintiff who brought a hopeless, meritless, misguided, and legally untenable challenge against the power of two councils to levy rates on her remote rural property.
Drafting the claim herself and appearing on her own behalf, the plaintiff in Brogden v Nicholson [2026] NZHC 192 brought proceedings in 2024 against the former chief executives of the Tararua District Council and the Horizons Regional Council.
Under the plaintiff’s theory, local authorities could only charge for services provided, with s 60 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 offering a legal avenue for her to assail the councils’ power to levy rates against her property.
The councils sought to strike out the claim. On 1 December 2025, Boldt J struck out the plaintiff’s claim based on a lack of any prospect of success and a misunderstanding of the law. The judge noted that:
The councils applied for indemnity costs. They specifically sought $23,537.62, including goods and services tax, plus disbursements of $873.62. The councils alleged that the plaintiff’s claim fell within r 14.6(4)(a) of the High Court Rules 2016.
The plaintiff opposed an award of indemnity costs. She asserted that her claim raised questions of statutory interpretation, public law, and procedural fairness, as well as explored the proper role of s 60 of the Local Government (Rating) Act.
Boldt J of the High Court of New Zealand confirmed that the plaintiff should pay a modest award of scale costs, specifically band 1A costs, plus disbursements of $873.62. The judge gave leave for the parties to challenge the calculation as incorrect.
The judge deemed it unlikely that any lawyer would have advised the plaintiff to proceed. The judge pointed out that the plaintiff represented herself instead of retaining legal representation, relied on an incomplete and untenable interpretation of the applicable laws, and should accept responsibility for failing to bring an arguable case.
However, the judge found an award of indemnity costs inappropriate. The judge ruled that the plaintiff acted in good faith, had no ulterior purpose, did not act improperly, and did not bring a vexatious, frivolous, or abusive proceeding.
The judge noted that the plaintiff presented a straightforward legal argument in a statement of claim that was only five paragraphs long. The judge added that the strike-out proceeding required only a brief hearing, with the councils easily establishing that the claim was legally unsustainable, resulting in a short judgment.
