Court considers financial hardship and responsible conduct in reducing costs award
The High Court of New Zealand has ordered an unsuccessful applicant for admission as a barrister and solicitor to pay $5,000 in costs to the New Zealand Law Society, reducing the $13,200 sought after considering the applicant’s financial hardship and conduct during proceedings.
In Atua-Azad v New Zealand Law Society [2026] NZHC 3092, the court considered costs following its 9 September 2026 decision declining the application for admission. The Law Society sought 2B scale costs of $13,200, while the applicant opposed any costs order.
The applicant submitted that he was unemployed, had been seeking work for several months, and relied on Jobseeker support to support his family, including two dependent children. He said he had no discretionary income but provided no details of his partner’s income or household expenditure.
He also argued that the Law Society’s costs claim was excessive because the proceedings involved one affidavit, submissions, and a half-day hearing. He maintained that the court should classify the matter as a category 1A proceeding.
The court rejected that classification, finding that the matter fell within category 2 because it involved average complexity and required counsel of average High Court experience. It also considered band B appropriate for the time taken at each step of the proceeding.
The court noted that costs ordinarily follow the event and that successful parties generally receive costs. It considered that this principle should generally apply to admission proceedings so that the cost of performing the Law Society's regulatory function in the public interest did not fall entirely on its members.
However, the High Court accepted that the applicant had pursued his case reasonably and presented it responsibly. It also recognised that he had no alternative but to seek admission through the court after the Law Society refused his certificate of good character.
The court considered previous admission decisions in which judges had reduced or declined costs because of financial hardship, public interest considerations, and the circumstances surrounding unsuccessful applications.
The court accepted the applicant's financial hardship and noted that he could address the concerns that prevented his admission. The court considered the risk that a costs award could become a crushing or unduly harsh impediment to him.
Balancing those considerations, the court found that the applicant should pay costs, but not the full-scale amount sought. It awarded the Law Society $5,000.
