Stehlin v Blue Pacific Motel (1997) Limited DC Gisborne CIV-2010-016-397 [2011] NZDC 75 (21 January 2011)

Last Updated: 26 September 2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT GISBORNE

_{CIV-2010-016-000397}

BETWEEN A E STEHLIN & M P STEHLIN AS TRUSTEES OF THE RREH TRUST Plaintiff

AND BLUE PACIFIC MOTEL (1997) LTD First Defendant

AND P SIMPSON & L M SIMPSON Second Defendants

Hearing: 16 December 2010

Appearances: DJ Sharp for the Plaintiff

GR Webb for the First Defendant

GR Webb for the Second Defendants

Judgment: 21 January 2011 13:30:00

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Decision as to Costs Award]

[1] This is a judgment as to costs. In my reserved judgment on the substantive issues in this case (dated 16 December 2010), I stated that counsel were given leave to file memoranda on costs. I have received memoranda from both the plaintiffs’ counsel and the defendants’ counsel.

Relevant law

[2] I have had regard to the following provisions of the District Court Rules

_2009:

A E STEHLIN & M P STEHLIN AS TRUSTEES OF THE RREH TRUST V BLUE PACIFIC MOTEL (1997) LTD DC GIS CIV-2010-016-000397 21 January 2011

Rule 4.1.1 All matters are at the discretion of the court if they relate to costs—

(a) of a proceeding; or

(b) incidental to a proceeding; or

(c) of a step in a proceeding.

4.2 The following general principles apply to the determination of costs:

(a) the party who fails with respect to a proceeding or an interlocutory application should pay costs to the party who succeeds;

(b) an award of costs should reflect the complexity and significance of the proceeding;

(c) costs should be assessed by applying the appropriate daily recovery rate to the time considered reasonable for each step reasonably required in relation to the proceeding or interlocutory application;

(d) an appropriate daily recovery rate should normally be two-thirds of the daily rate considered reasonable in relation to the proceeding or interlocutory application;

(e) what is an appropriate daily recovery rate and what is a reasonable time should not depend on the skill or experience of the solicitor or counsel involved or on the time actually spent by the solicitor or counsel involved or on the costs actually incurred by the party claiming costs;

(f) an award of costs should not exceed the costs incurred by the party claiming costs;

(g) so far as possible the determination of costs should be predictable and expeditious.

Findings

[10] In light of the above law and the memoranda of both counsel, I allow the following costs on a 2B basis to the defendants:

Response by Defendants 1 day Preparing and serving Defendants’ information capsule 2 days Preparation for short trial 0.5 days Appearance at hearing 1 day

Daily rate $1,500 per day x 4.5 days = $6,750

P R Spiller

District Court Judge