Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of New Zealand Decisions |
Last Updated: 16 March 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
CIV-2015-485-484 [2016] NZHC 379
UNDER
|
the Defamation Act 1992
|
BETWEEN
|
KAREN FRANCES ARNOLD Plaintiff
|
AND
|
FAIRFAX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED First Defendant
TIMOTHY RICHARD SHADBOLT Second Defendant
|
On the papers
|
|
Counsel:
|
P A McKnight and A J Romanos for Plaintiff
R K P Stewart and R G Cahn for First Defendant
F E Geiringer for Second Defendant
|
Judgment:
|
8 March 2016
|
JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J (COSTS)
[1] It is not unusual for a variety of orders to be sought in an
interlocutory application. The fact that some only of those
orders may be
sought as against all parties, and others as regards one or some only of those
parties, does not in my view mean that
there is more than one application to be
considered from a costs perspective. On that basis:
(a) I accept Mr Geiringer’s memorandum filed on 6 March
2016;
(b) I do not accept the analysis that the second defendant responded to two
separate applications;
ARNOLD v FAIRFAX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2016] NZHC 379 [8 March 2016]
(c) I consider that a 25 per cent discount over-states Ms Arnold’s
limited
success;
(d) I consider that a 12.5 per cent reduction reflects that limited success. [2] I therefore determine:
(a) that the plaintiff will pay costs of $5,908.00 to the first defendant
in
respect of the plaintiff’s interlocutory application heard on 2
February
2016; and
(b) that the plaintiff will pay costs of $5,167.50 to the second
defendant.
[3] High Court Rule 14.8 is clear. Costs on interlocutory applications
must be fixed in accordance with the Rules when the
application is determined
and become payable when they are fixed, in the absence of “special reasons
to the contrary”.
No such special reasons have been advanced. The rule
will therefore apply on its terms. I do not understand that the concepts of
“costs in any event” and “costs in the proceedings”
feature in this Court’s Rules.
“Clifford J”
Solicitors:
Langford Law, Wellington for Plaintiff
Izard Weston, Wellington for First Defendant
Preston Russell Law, Invercargill for Second Defendant
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2016/379.html