Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Tonga Law Reports

Veikune v Kingdom of Tonga [2008] TOLawRp 14; [2008] Tonga LR 60 (18 March 2008)

IN THE LAND COURT OF TONGA
Land Court, Nuku'alofa

LA 9/2007

Veikune

v

Kingdom of Tonga

Andrew J
18 March 2008

Costs – appeal to vary costs order – unique constitutional matter previously undecided – each party should bear its own costs

The plaintiff's action against the Crown had been dismissed on 13 December 2007 with costs having been awarded to the defendant. The plaintiff then made application to vary the order as to costs to provide that each party should bear its own costs. The basis of the application for variation was that the case involved a unique constitutional matter that had not previously been decided in any court.

Held:

1. It was accepted that the case had involved a unique constitutional matter which had not previously been decided and that the position in law had been unclear thus making it necessary for the plaintiff to bring the action.

2. In the circumstances, the earlier ruling as to costs was vacated and it was ordered that each party pay its own costs.

Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr Tupou
Counsel for the defendant : Mr Kefu

Judgment

The Plaintiff action in this matter was dismissed on the 13 December 2007 and costs were awarded to the defendant as agreed or taxed.

The Plaintiff now makes application to vary costs, that is that each party should bear its own costs.

The basis of the variation is that this was a unique constitutional matter which had previously not been decided in any court proceedings and that the position in law was unclear and that in those circumstances it was necessary for the plaintiff to bring this action. I think there is substance in this application. Previously in similar circumstances where the legal position was unclear i.e. in another matter involving the interpretation of the constitution, costs were ordered to be borne by each party. The Crown is neutral on the application on the basis that it is properly a matter within the discretion of the Court.

In the circumstances I propose to vacate the earlier ruling that costs be awarded to the defendant as agreed or taxed and I make an order that each party pay its own costs.