Charge him the full amount

I see from the Herald yesterday that the Attorney-General is seeking $14,000 in costs from Bradley Ambrose after he made everyone jump through hoops so he could escape criminal charges:

Now, the Attorney-General has filed a memorandum in the High Court at Auckland seeking $13,669.45 in costs from Ambrose. Those costs include $3760 for hearing preparation costs and counsel fees; $5076 for general costs including researching and filing; $1377.70 for air travel and $278.52 for taxis.

Counsel for the Attorney-General, Sean Kinsler, said the Attorney-General consented to bringing Ambrose’s matter to a hearing just two days after it was filed in the High Court. That caused a “compressed timetable” and only two working days for the Crown to do the necessary pre-hearing work.

He said the total spent by the Attorney-General on the matter, up to the end of the hearing, was $23,442.95.

However, they were seeking what they believed was an appropriate and reasonable rate based on the work done and expenses incurred.

What! What is appropriate and reasonable is for the full costs that Ambrose caused through his actions in taking it to court are billed not some arbitrary amount.

The Attorney-General should be seeking the full amount.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Anonymous

    NZ courts rarely award ‘full costs’, the amount of costs that may be awarded to a successful party is set out in the High Court Rules and works out at about two-thirds of costs incurred. There are other aspects, like if two lawyers represent a client for a simple case, only one is paid for. Hence Crown Law is merely seeking costs in accordance with the rules, with perhaps a bit of boundary pushing.

  • RAS

    Bradley Ambrose thought himself really smart and clever – he personally caused huge disruption to the election process and deliberately set out to make money by flogging off the illegally recorded tapes.  Of course he should be fined and he should consider himself lucky to get off with only $14,000 – but he will probably claim he is broke and can’t afford it so that Crown will not get paid I suspect.  What is important is that the judgement and fine is recorded against him to rein him in next time he has a money making scheme come to mind.

    • Anonymous

      He still faces prosecution and a fine/ community sentence/ imprisonment for ‘bugging’ the conversation. If he is lucky, the Police / Crown Law may decide that a conviction is unlikely and not bring a charge.

      • Kosh103

        They would never get a conviction seeing as the conversation was a public one and Key invited the media.

      • Petal

        Kosh103 is a glass half full kinda guy!

    • Vij

      Go away Kosh103, you are a moronic idiot

  • GPT

    I suspect that the costs sought are based on the High Court Rules Scale.  The $20-odd k spent by, I assume, Crown  Law is actually pretty fair.  I suspect a big five would have started at $100k and gone North from there.  Of course on legal aid, with a tail wind, it might have been $5k.

  • Peter Wilson

    @ kosh
    They would never get a conviction seeing as the conversation was a public one and Key invited the media.

    This argument on privacy is now over and the PM will quietly let this matter drop. Ambrose had his day in court, and lost. The fact that the court came down on Key’s side means he can take the moral high ground without taking the matter further.

    • Kosh103

      LMAO  – Key and moral high ground are opposites. And the privacy argument is far from over.

      • Thorn

        And who holds the high ground?

      • Kosh103

        @ thorn: it was a public conversation to which the media were invited to. Nothing wrong with recording it. Nothing at all.

      • Bo Jangles

        Kosh, you are a blunt knife short of a cuttleryset

      • Peter Wilson

        Sorry Kosh, but not according to the judge. I suspect the police will decide Ambrose has suffered punishment and humiliation enough. I personally hope Key will let the matter drop.

        We’ve all given the PM a huge mandate and he needs to get on with it.

  • Kosh103

    No Peter WE have all not given Key a mandate. I did not vote for him nor do I support most of his policies. And I look foward to the day we have a Labour Govt again and they fix the mess National is creating.

  • Cindy10101

    @Kosh103. Dont you mean the mess that Labour left NZ in after 9 years. Give me a break! We are in better shape now than ever. Nine years of Aunty Helen has clouded your vision.

    • Kosh103

      LMAO – I love it when the right try to rewrite history. Even Bill English said how good a state things were in when National took over. So, dear cindy before you try to alter the past, I suggest you check with Billy as to what he said before you say things.

      • Vij

        Kosh103 you are a moronic idiot.  Truth does not exist in your vocabulary.  You are the one rewriting history. Your are an idiot, and always will be an idiot.

  • no8wire

    What I would like to know, and if not seen the question reported anywhere is where did the money come from in the first instance for Mr Ambrose to bring his claim.  Was his lawyer a labour hack doing it pro bono.  As been noted above, Crown Law’s costs, particulary with the urgency and relatively novelty of the legal issue, were very modest.  Bradley Ambrose costs if he was paying market value would have been at least $30K.  I would love to see the money trail between his lawyer and the Mr Ambrose followed up on.  It may expose that the whole incident was one huge attempt by one of the parties at dirty tricks. 

    • RAS

      Try Mediaworks. Hence the suggestion that the costs will be paid for him – despite his lawyer bleating that his clent’s business will be ruined.. Ambrose should leave the country, his media ethics (or lack of) are not welcome – he did a huge amount of damage to the country’s media reputation.

  • Vlad

    Kosh103, you are an adornment to this blog, where would we all be without you blundering in and bleating denials about the verdict the people of New Zealand delivered on your sorry excuse for a political party?   It would be no fun without someone to indulge and give a passing slap on the lugs.  Have a good New Year, hope you got a hair shirt in the right size for Xmas. 

  • Info

    As well as the court costs, can we also sue him for Peters salary for three years?