|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of New Zealand Decisions |
Last Updated: 29 June 2019
|
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
|
|
CIV-2017-404-166
[2019] NZHC 1387 |
|
UNDER
|
the Companies Act 1993
|
|
BETWEEN
|
ENERGY SECURITIES LP
Plaintiff
|
|
AND
|
VECTOR LIMITED
Defendant
|
|
Hearing:
|
On the papers
|
|
Appearances:
|
T J Herbert for the Plaintiff
J K Goodall and K M Venning for the Defendant
|
|
Judgment:
|
18 June 2019
|
JUDGMENT OF GORDON J
This judgment was delivered by me on 18 June 2019 at 3.00 pm, pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:
Solicitors: Currie Lawyers Ltd, Christchurch
Chapman Tripp, Auckland T J Herbert, Auckland
Counsel: J K Goodall, Auckland
ENERGY SECURITIES LP v VECTOR LTD [2019] NZHC 1387 [18 June 2019]
Introduction
[1] On 14 March 2019, the plaintiff, Energy Securities LP (ESL), unilaterally discontinued its proceeding against the defendant, Vector Ltd (Vector).
[2] The parties have been unable agree costs. Vector has filed a memorandum seeking costs and disbursements as set out in Annexure A to this judgment.1
The law
[3] Costs are at the discretion of this Court.2 The High Court Rules 2016 provide guidance as to how the discretion might be exercised.3
[4] The general principle is that the party who fails with respect to a proceeding should pay costs to the successful party.4 The successful party should be awarded costs on a scale basis.5 But, when applying the scale costs regime, the Court must consider each formal step individually for the purposes of assessing the appropriate time band. A blanket approach is not appropriate.6
[5] Ultimately, the overriding consideration when exercising the discretion to award costs is that any award ought to do justice between the parties.7
Submissions
[6] Vector seeks scale costs in the amount of $37,018.8 The items are all claimed on a 2B basis, with the exception of a claim for written submissions in support of the applications for summary judgment and strike out, which is sought on a 2C basis.
2 High Court Rules 2016, r 14.1(1).
3 Rules 14.2–14.7.
4 Rules 14.2(1)(a).
5 Manukau Golf Club Inc v Shoye Venture Ltd [2012] NZSC 109, [2013] 1 NZLR 305 at [8].
6 Paper Reclaim Ltd v Aotearoa International Ltd [2007] NZCA 544 at [35].
7 Packing In Ltd (in liq) v Chilcott [2003] NZCA 124; (2003) 16 PRNZ 869 (CA) at [5].
[7] Vector then seeks increased costs on those scale costs under r 14.6(3) on the grounds that ESL failed to comply with court directions over an extended period and pursued an argument that lacked merit. It seeks a 50 per cent uplift resulting in total costs of $55,527.
[8] Lastly, Vector submits that a total of $1,504 in disbursements should also be awarded for court fees and copying fees.
[9] In response, ESL says that it is prepared to pay scale costs, but only for steps that were actually required. Consequently, ESL accepts scale costs of $18,732. It makes specific submissions in response to certain steps claimed by Vector. In its reply memorandum, Vector accepts some reduction in the scale costs calculation — this reduced amount is the claimed amount ($37,018).
[10] ESL opposes increased costs. It says that Vector was awarded costs on any occasions of non-compliance by ESL with court orders. It submits that it was not unreasonable for ESL to believe that its claims would succeed. ESL says that it cannot be said there was never a reasonable prospect of success. Therefore, ESL submits an award of increased costs is inappropriate.
[11] Lastly, as to disbursements, ESL accepts the amount claimed for court fees but opposes the claim for copying fees, for which no invoice was originally attached. Vector subsequently attached an invoice for its copying fees to its reply memorandum.
Issues
[12] There are three issues I must decide:
(a) Whether the identified steps are properly categorised on a 2B basis (with the exception of Vector’s written submissions for which the claim is on a 2C basis);
(b) Whether Vector is entitled to increased costs; and
(c) Whether the disbursements sought are reasonable.
Scale costs
[13] Where there has been a discontinuance of any proceeding in the High Court, as is the case here, there is a presumption in favour of costs being awarded under r 15.23. There is nothing to displace this presumption.9
[14] Rule 14.2(1)(c) of the High Court Rules provides that:
... costs should be assessed by applying the appropriate daily recovery rate at the time considered reasonable for each step reasonably required in relation to the proceeding or interlocutory application ...
[15] Presently, the proceeding is classified under category 2, the appropriate daily recovery for which is $2,230.10 Rule 14.5 then provides:
14.5 Determination of reasonable time
(1) For the purposes of rule 14.2(c), a reasonable time for a step is—
(a) the time specified for in Schedule 3; or
(b) a time determined by analogy with that schedule, if Schedule 3 does not apply; or
(c) the time assessed as likely to be required for a particular step, if no analogy can usefully be made.
(2) A determination of what is a reasonable time for a step under subclause (1) must be made by reference—
(a) to band A, if a comparatively small amount of time is considered reasonable; or
(b) to band B, if a normal amount of time is considered reasonable; or
(c) to band C, if a comparatively large amount of time for the particular step is considered reasonable.
[16] Mr Herbert, for ESL, submits that 12 of the items sought by Vector should not be awarded and that Vector’s written submissions should be categorised as 2B.
10 High Court Rules, r 14.3 and sch 2.
Items in dispute
[17] ESL accepts payment of some scale costs ($18,732 of the $37,018 claimed by Vector). It is prepared to pay costs on steps that were (according to its submissions) actually required. Therefore, I will limit my discussion to the nine items in dispute and the three items which ESL excludes from its calculation of scale costs (without stating express reasons).
[18] First, I turn to the contentions made by ESL and accepted (to some degree) by Vector. There are three such items: step 13, filing joint memorandum (timetable directions) (dated 17 August 2017); step 11, filing joint memorandum for case management conference (dated 8 December 2017); and step 12, appearance in the Duty Judge list (dated 15 November 2018).
[19] Mr Herbert, for ESL, submits that the joint memoranda (steps 13 and 11) were prepared by the plaintiff’s then solicitor, not the defendant. Mr Goodall, for Vector, accepts this fact. However, he submits the content still needed to be agreed and instructions obtained. Accordingly, Vector is willing to agree to 50 per cent of the costs for the two joint memoranda. This is appropriate. Accordingly, costs of $223 and $446 are awarded for steps 13 and 11 respectively for those dates.11
[20] Additionally, Mr Herbert submits costs have already been awarded in relation to the Duty Judge list appearance in a minute of Whata J (dated 15 November 2018). Again, Mr Goodall, for Vector, accepts this point in his reply submissions; he removed the item from the claim, reducing the original scale costs calculation by a further $446.
[21] Second, I turn to the six items that remain in dispute.
[22] The first of these are Vector’s two memoranda for the Chambers List (dated 16 and 17 May 2018). Mr Herbert says that costs have already been awarded in relation to the memoranda by minute of Associate Judge Smith (dated 18 May 2018).
11 Mr Goodall, in his reply memorandum for Vector, accepts a 50 per cent reduction to step 11, filing joint memorandum for case management conference. However, the memorandum erroneously states that a reduction of $223 is appropriate for that step; in fact, 50 per cent of that step ($892) is $446. The calculations throughout this judgment are based on this correction.
However, as Mr Goodall points out, the Associate Judge’s order for costs was only in relation to the strike-out application (dated 23 April 2018), not in relation to the two memoranda.12 I accordingly allow costs in relation to the two memoranda as claimed by Vector.
[23] Mr Herbert also opposes costs for sealing the order (dated 12 June 2018). He says the order was sealed without any reference to costs, therefore, the court is functus officio. Again, I find there is no merit in this reasoning. Vector was required to seal the orders; it was a required step. In fact, the sealing of orders is a listed step in sch 3 (step 29). Therefore, Vector is entitled to costs for this step as claimed.
[24] Next, Mr Herbert opposes costs for the joint memorandum seeking leave to extend the page limit for interlocutory submissions (dated 12 February 2019). He says that Vector sought an indulgence from the Court, and costs should not be awarded against ESL. Mr Goodall replies that both parties agreed it was necessary to seek the extension, thus it was a required step and costs are justified. Whilst it is correct that Vector sought an indulgence from the Court, the extension was sought by both parties; Mr Herbert, for ESL, signed the memorandum. The memorandum states that the page extension “is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances” (emphasis added). Accordingly, I allow costs for this step as sought by Vector.
[25] There are two final items that ESL expressly opposes: preparation for the summary judgment/strike-out hearing (dated 14 March 2019) and the filing of the memorandum as to costs (dated 29 March 2019). Mr Herbert’s reasons for opposition are stated briefly.
[26] In relation to the hearing preparation, he says Mr Goodall has not provided any evidence that he incurred time in preparing for the hearing. However, Mr Goodall, in Vector’s memorandum as to costs (dated 4 April 2019), certified that a full day’s preparation was in fact completed.13 I find that this suffices for present purposes.
12 Minute of Associate Judge Smith (dated 18 May 2018) at [4] and [9].
13 Vector’s memorandum as to costs (4 April 2019) at [14(d)].
[27] In relation to the memorandum as to costs, Mr Herbert says the basis for a “costs on costs” claim is unclear. Whilst there has been some divergence in the court’s approach to awarding costs on application for costs, it is well established that such costs may be awarded.14 An application for costs is to be treated no differently, for costs purposes, from an ordinary interlocutory application. In Paper Reclaim Ltd v Aotearoa International Ltd, the Court of Appeal determined that there was to be no order for costs made in respect of a costs application if neither side’s position had been completely upheld.15 In this case there were errors in Vector’s initial claim, which it has accepted in its response to ESL’s submissions. Although the errors were not substantial, I do not allow the claim as its initial position has not been completely upheld. That is further apparent taking into account my decision on the 2C claim which I address in the next part of this judgment.
[28] Finally, there are three items that ESL has not included in its calculation of scale costs but has not given express reasons for its opposition. This includes: step 20, list of documents for discovery (dated 9 March 2018); step 21, inspection of documents (dated 18 May 2018); and step 22, filing memorandum (plaintiff’s defaults and timetable directions) (dated 5 November 2018). These were all necessary steps. In the absence of express reasons for opposition, I consider it is appropriate for these steps to be included in the scale costs calculation on a 2B basis as claimed by Vector.
Vector’s written submissions: 2B or 2C?
[29] The final issue in relation to scale costs is whether Vector’s written submissions for summary judgment/strike out (dated 4 March 2019) should be on a 2C or 2B basis.
[30] A step should be categorised as band C if a comparatively large amount of time is considered reasonable for that step and band B if a normal amount of time is considered reasonable.16 It is not the length of the written submissions per se which is determinative of the relevant time band, but the complexity of the issues to be
14 Body Corporate Administration v Mehta (No 4) [2013] NZHC 213 at [85].
15 Paper Reclaim Ltd v Aotearoa International Ltd, above n 6, at [62].
16 High Court Rules, r 14.5(2).
determined and the time involved in preparing and formulating the arguments reflected in those submissions.17
[31] Mr Goodall seeks scale costs for Vector’s written submissions on a 2C basis. This is because the submissions needed to address “the voluminous affidavit evidence and contained detailed legal analysis”. He says that it was for this reason that the parties sought and obtained a direction from the Court, by consent, to extend the page limit for written submissions from 10 pages to 20 pages.
[32] Whilst Mr Herbert accepts costs should be awarded in relation to the submissions, he says it should be on a 2B basis. He submits that Vector’s argument was a relatively simple one expressed in an unnecessarily complex way. He also adds that Vector has not provided any evidence that costs were in fact incurred. However, Mr Goodall has confirmed that the actual costs exceeded the 2C scale assessment.
[33] I do not consider that “a comparatively large amount of time for the particular step is ... reasonable”. I would not describe the affidavit evidence to be addressed as “voluminous”. In total, there were four affidavits to be addressed: three in support of Vector’s application and one filed by ESL. There was a large number of share transfer forms (each only a one page document) annexed to the affidavit filed by ESL and one of the affidavits filed by Vector. That resulted in bulky affidavits. But the issue in relation to all of the forms was the same. The affidavits themselves were not lengthy.
[34] As to the written submissions, the operation of s 91 of the Companies Act 1993 was a central part of the proceeding. Vector’s written submissions made brief reference to the historical operation of that provision and included brief references to international jurisprudence and the application of analogous provisions overseas. The submissions were 16 pages. I do not consider the written submissions are properly classified as 2C. The appropriate classification is 2B.
17 Minister of Education v James Hardie New Zealand [2018] NZHC 2960 at [16].
[35] In conclusion, I allow scale costs of $32,781 as set out in Annexure B.18
Increased costs
[36] Vector seeks increased costs under r 14.6(3) on the basis that the party opposing costs (ESL) contributed unnecessarily to the time and expense of the proceeding by:
(a) failing to comply with the rules or a direction of the court;19 and/or
(b) taking or pursuing an unnecessary step or argument that lacks merit.20
[37] Accordingly, Vector seeks a 50 per cent uplift in scale costs.
The law
[38] The party claiming increased costs (Vector) carries the onus of persuading the Court that their award is justified.21 An abandonment of a cause of action itself is not a pointer to increased costs.22 The Court must examine the nexus between a party’s alleged unreasonableness and the contribution of that unreasonableness to delaying or increasing expenses in the proceeding. An uplift is justified only to the extent that the unreasonableness contributed to the delay and expense of the proceeding.23
[39] The principle can be summarised as follows:24
[Increased] costs may be awarded on the basis of lack of merit ... where the lack of merit is both obvious and incontrovertible. So clearly so that there is no reasonable possibility that the Court might form a different view with the benefit of all the evidence and closing submissions. No difficult or detailed speculation is involved. The claim is and was so flawed that nothing in the evidence and submissions to follow could save it — and the plaintiff has acted
18 This is calculated by Vector’s original claimed amount ($38,133) – ($223 + $446 + $446) to reflect the reductions discussed at [18]–[20] and a further reduction (of $3,345 + $892) to reflect the re- categorisation of Vector’s written submissions from 2C (as claimed) to 2B (as awarded) and my refusal to award costs on costs respectively.
19 High Court Rules, r 14.6(3)(b)(i).
20 Rule 14.6(3)(b)(ii).
21 Strachan v Denbigh Property Ltd HC Palmerston North CIV-2010-454-232, 3 June 2011 at [27].
23 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Ltd [2010] NZCA 400 at [165].
unreasonably in bringing or continuing the claim. It is, thus stated, a double hurdle. The first assesses the claim; the second, the claimant’s conduct.
[40] For the purposes of r 14.6(3)(b)(ii), where an argument lacked merit and was inherently unlikely to succeed, the increased costs apply to all steps.25
Failure to comply with rules or court directions
[41] Mr Goodall attached to his memorandum as to costs a compilation of ESL’s unreasonable conduct and failure to comply with court directions:
(a) ESL filed a defective statement of claim (SOC) and was ordered, by the Court, to file an amended SOC by 11 August 2017. It failed to do so and filed an amended SOC on 25 September 2017.
(b) Vector applied for security for costs, which was ordered by consent on 16 November 2017. ESL agreed to pay costs of $1,838 on Vector’s application within three working days. ESL failed to pay these costs despite numerous requests for payment (although it did pay the first tranche of security).
(c) The second tranche of security in the sum of $10,000 due by 23 May 2018 was not paid.
(d) On 22 March and 5 April 2018, prior to inspection being commenced, counsel for Vector wrote to ESL seeking confirmation that its claim was in tort. ESL ignored these communications. Therefore, on 23 April 2018, Vector filed an interlocutory application seeking an order requiring ESL to confirm the nature of its claim.
(e) The parties were directed to give discovery by 2 March 2018, which was then extended by agreement to 9 March 2018. Vector complied; ESL failed to give discovery and failed requests from Vector’s counsel for an update. On 23 April 2018, Vector filed an interlocutory
application to enforce the discovery order. Following this, ESL gave discovery on 8 May 2018 (two months late). ESL made no attempt to vary the timetable and ignored correspondence from Vector’s counsel.
(f) On 18 May 2018, ESL was ordered to pay Vector costs of $1,838 on its interlocutory application. ESL failed to do so despite requests from Vector’s counsel.
(g) On 12 June 2018, three orders were sealed. On 14 June 2018, the sealed orders were served on ESL with a formal request for payments of the outstanding costs and security. ESL failed to pay.
(h) On 28 June 2018, Vector filed an application for unless orders based on ESL’s failure to pay the security for costs and the costs orders. In July 2018, ESL paid the monies due under the two cost orders (more than seven months late and six weeks late respectively).
(i) On 21 August 2018, Palmer J stayed the proceeding and made an unless order requiring the second of the three-tranche security for costs to be paid by 21 September 2018. Vector was awarded costs on the application, due 29 October 2018. The agreed costs were $3,426 including disbursements. ESL paid the second tranche of security ($10,000) but never paid the costs.
(j) ESL was directed to file its opposition and supporting affidavits to Vector’s applications for summary judgment and strike-out by 19 October 2018.
(k) On 15 November 2018, ESL’s non-compliance was before Whata J in the Duty List. The Judge varied the timetable and ordered scale costs to be paid to Vector for the appearance. These costs have not been paid.
[42] As noted by Palmer J in his minute of 21 August 2018, “there is a history of delays and breaches of deadlines by ESL. No evidence of an excuse is given.”26 ESL has failed to comply with court orders on various occasions without good reason. Its non-compliance undoubtedly contributed to the time and expense of the proceeding.
[43] In response, Mr Herbert says that when ESL’s compliance with orders was delayed, Vector was compensated on an individual basis by costs, and awarding increased costs would effectively punish ESL twice. While at first glance it may appear that there is some substance in that submission, on each occasion the costs award was modest, being based on scale. I stand back and look at the overall history which shows an ongoing pattern of non-compliance.
[44] If this were the sole basis for the claim for increased costs, I might hesitate to award increased costs on this ground on its own. But I consider it operates as a secondary ground to the claim that ESL pursued an argument that lacked merit, to which I now turn.
Pursuit of unmeritorious argument
[45] Mr Goodall submits that ESL has continued to pursue an unmeritorious claim before unilaterally discontinuing the proceeding at the last minute, on the evening of 14 March 2019, the day before the hearing of Vector’s applications for summary judgment and strike out of ESL’s claim. The proceeding has been running for more than two years.
[46] The Court may consider the merits of competing contentions on a costs claim following a discontinuance when the merits are clear.27 I follow the twofold approach in N-Tech Ltd v Abooth Ltd, that is to first assess the merits of the claim and then the claimant’s conduct.28
[47] I have the benefit of the submissions filed by Vector on the summary judgment and strike-out applications and the (late) submissions in opposition by ESL. The
26 Minute of Palmer J (dated 30 August 2018) at [8].
27 Eden Refuge Trust v Hohepa [2012] NZHC 685 at [24].
28 N-Tech Ltd v Abooth Ltd, above n 24, at [108].
essence of Vector’s submission is that ESL’s claim in tort for breach of a statutory duty (s 84(4) of the Companies Act 1993) is misconceived because s 91 of the Act provides a statutory remedy for any breach of s 84(4). I accept this submission. A claim in tort for breach of a statutory duty where there is a clear statutory remedy for the alleged breach is meritless. My view is supported by comments made by ESL’s principal, Mr Bernard Whimp, after the discontinuance was filed. He was quoted in the National Business Review saying that ESL’s case “ran into a technical problem” and “we’re not in the business of running cases we won’t win”.
[48] Consequently, I award increased costs on the basis that ESL pursued an argument that lacked merit over a period of two years. As a supporting ground, for the reasons outlined above at [41] and [42], ESL’s conduct was unreasonable.
Calculating increased costs
[49] Having determined that increased costs should be awarded, the next question is: how much uplift is appropriate?
[50] Mr Goodall seeks an uplift of 50 per cent, citing two cases where an uplift of that level was awarded.29
[51] In New Pastures Ltd v FM Custodians Ltd, the plaintiff discontinued its claim against a defendant seeking summary judgment, after the defendant filed its submissions in support of summary judgment (as in the present case).30 The Court granted a 50 per cent uplift in scale costs for breaching the timetable and pursuing a meritless case (as I have found in the present case).31
[52] Similarly, in Scott v Miller, the Court ordered increased costs against the plaintiff following discontinuance of the proceeding.32 The Court stated:33
... increased costs should be ordered. In my view, Ms Scott [the plaintiff] maintained an argument over a period of some 18 months which had little or
30 New Pastures Ltd v FM Custodians Ltd, above n 29.
31 At [15]–[21].
32 Scott v Miller, above n 29 .
33 At [18].
no prospect of success. Those circumstances justify an uplift on the usual award of costs on discontinuance.
[53] The Court ordered a 50 per cent uplift in scale costs for pursuit of a meritless case for 18 months; the present proceeding has run for over two years.
[54] I am satisfied that a 50 per cent uplift in scale costs is appropriate. This brings overall costs to $49,171.50 (calculated by 1.5 x $32,781).
Disbursements
[55] Vector seeks a total of $1,504 in disbursements for court fees and copying fees.
[56] Rule 14.12 of the High Court Rules relevantly provides as follows:
14.12 Disbursements
(1) In this rule,—
disbursement, in relation to a proceeding—
(a) means an expense paid or incurred for the purpose of the proceeding that would ordinarily be charged for separately from legal professional service in a solicitor’s bill of costs; and
(b) includes—
(i) fees of court for the proceeding:
(ii) expenses of serving documents for the purposes of the proceeding:
(iii) expenses of photocopying documents required by these rules or by a direction of the court:
(iv) expenses of conducting a conference by telephone or video link; but
(c) does not include counsel’s fees.
relevant issue, in relation to a disbursement, means the issue in respect of which the disbursement was paid or incurred.
(2) A disbursement must, if claimed and verified, be included in the costs awarded for a proceeding to the extent that it is—
(a) of a class that is either—
- (i) approved by the court for the purposes of the proceeding; or
(ii) specified in paragraph (b) of subclause (1); and
(b) specific to the conduct of the proceeding; and
(c) reasonably necessary for the conduct of the proceeding; and
(d) reasonable in amount.
(3) Despite subclause (2), a disbursement may be disallowed or reduced if it is disproportionate in the circumstances of the proceeding.
...
[57] The disbursements sought fall within categories in r 14.12(1)(b)(i) and (iii).
[58] First, Vector seeks a total of $770 in disbursements for court fees (including filing and sealing fees). ESL accepts this amount.
[59] Secondly, Vector seeks $734 for copying costs. ESL opposes the claim for this amount in the absence of an accompanying invoice. Vector has since appended an invoice to its reply memorandum. The invoice, however, indicates a GST-inclusive total of $792.16 and a GST-exclusive total of $688.85 for copying.
[60] An award of disbursements should include GST only if the successful party (Vector) is not GST-registered.34 The Court of Appeal noted that:35
If a successful party is to be fully reimbursed for its actual claimable expenses, then the Court must know whether it is registered for GST. The aim when allowing disbursements is full recovery, so that the successful party is not left out of pocket.
[61] The onus is on the successful party to provide this information.36 If the court receives no information from the party as to its ability to recover a GST input credit from Inland Revenue, the court should proceed to exclude GST from disbursements.37 Presently, Vector has not provided any information as to whether it is GST-registered. Consequently, GST is to be excluded from its disbursements.
34 New Zealand Venue and Event Management Ltd v Worldwide NZ LLC [2016] NZCA 282 at [17].
35 At [17] (footnotes omitted).
36 At [16].
37 At [16].
[62] Accordingly, I award disbursements for the GST-exclusive amount of $688.85 for copying fees and $770 for court fees, for a total disbursement amount of $1,458.85.
Result
[63] Vector Ltd is entitled to costs of $49,171.50 and disbursements of $1,458.85. I make an order for costs and disbursements in the total sum of $50,630.35 as set out in Annexure B to this judgment.
Gordon J
Annexure A
Vector's claim for costs and disbursements
|
Step
|
Date
|
Details
|
Scale
|
8'!7
Rate
|
Time
Allocation
|
Total
|
|
2
|
03.04. 2017
|
Commencement of defence
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
2
|
$4,460
|
|
10
|
24.05. 2017
|
Preparation for first CMC
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.4
|
$892
|
|
11
|
24.05. 2017
|
Filing memorandum for first CMC
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.4
|
$892
|
|
13
|
31.05. 2017
|
Appearance at first CMC
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.3
|
$669
|
|
|
17.08. 2017
|
Filing joint memorandum (timetable directions)
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.1
|
$223
|
|
|
18.09. 2017
|
Filing memorandum (plaintiff s timetable breaches)
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.2
|
$446
|
|
11
|
28.09. 2017
|
Filing memorandum for mention
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.4
|
$892
|
|
12
|
29.09. 2017
|
Apearance at mentions hearing
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.2
|
$446
|
|
|
1 4.11. 2017
|
Filing joint memorandum (security for costs)
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.2
|
$446
|
|
9
|
22.11. 2017
|
Amended statement of defence
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.6
|
$1,338
|
|
|
30.11.2017
|
Filing joint memorandum (variation of security for costs orders)
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.2
|
$446
|
|
11
|
08.12.2018
|
Filing joint memorandum for CMC
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.2
|
$446 **
|
|
20
|
09.03.2018
|
List of documents on discovery
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
2.5
|
$5,575
|
|
|
16.05.2018
|
Filing memorandum for Chambers List
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.2
|
$446
|
|
|
17.05.2018
|
Filing memorandum (in reply to plaintiff s memorandum)
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.2
|
$446
|
|
21
|
18.05.2018
|
Inspection of documents
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
1.5
|
$3,345
|
|
29
|
12.06.2018
|
Sealing order
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.2
|
$446
|
|
22
|
28.06.2018
|
Filing interlocutory application
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.6
|
$1,338
|
|
|
28.09.2018
|
Filing memorandum for callover
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.2
|
$446
|
|
|
05.11. 2018
|
Filing memorandum (plaintiff s defaults and timetable directions)
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.2
|
$446
|
|
12
|
12.02. 2019
|
Filing joint memorandum (extend page limit for submissions)
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.2
|
$446
|
|
24
|
04.03. 2019
|
Preparation of witness submissions
|
2C
|
$2,230
|
3
|
$6,690
|
|
25
|
04.03. 2019
|
Preparation of bundle for hearing
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.6
|
$1,338
|
|
11
|
11.03. 2019
|
Filing memorandum for adjournment application
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.4
|
$892
|
|
12
|
12.03. 2019
|
Appearance at hearing of application
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.2
|
$446
|
|
|
1 4.03. 2019
|
Preparing for the hearing
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
1
|
$2,230
|
|
|
29.03. 2019
|
Filing memorandum as to costs
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.4
|
$892
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
$37,018
|
* 50 per cent increased costs on scale costs - total costs $55,527
** See footnote 11 ofjudgment
Disbursements
Filing fee for statement of defence
Filing fee for amended statement of defence Filing fee for interlocutory applicadon Sealing fee
Copying costs for hearing bundles (Snap Prindng)
Total
$110
$110
$500
$50
$734
$1,504
Annexure B
Costs and disbursements awarded
|
Step
|
Date
|
Details
|
Scale
|
ttfly Rate
|
Time Allocation
|
Total
|
|
2
|
03.04.2017
|
Commencement of defence
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
2
|
$4,460
|
|
10
|
24.05.2017
|
Preparation for first CMC
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.4
|
$892
|
|
11
|
24.05.2017
|
Filing memorandum for first CMC
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.4
|
$892
|
|
13
|
31.05.2017
|
Appearance at first CMC
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.3
|
$669
|
|
|
17.08.2017
|
Filing joint memorandum (timetable directions)
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.1
|
$223
|
|
|
18.09.2017
|
Filing memorandum (plainti If s timetable breaches)
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.2
|
$446
|
|
11
|
28.09.2017
|
Filing memorandum for mention
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.4
|
$892
|
|
12
|
29.09.2017
|
Apearance at mentions hearing
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.2
|
$446
|
|
|
14.11.20l 7
|
Filing joint memorandum (security for costs)
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.2
|
$446
|
|
9
|
22.11.20l 7
|
Amended statement of defence
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.6
|
$1,338
|
|
|
30.11.20l 7
|
Filing joint memorandum (variation of security for costs order
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.2
|
$446
|
|
11
|
08.12.2018
|
Filing joint memorandum for CMC
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.2
|
$446
|
|
20
|
09.03.2018
|
List of documents on discovery
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
2.5
|
$5,575
|
|
|
16.05.2018
|
Filing memorandum for Chambers List
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.2
|
$446
|
|
|
17.05.2018
|
Filing memorandum (in reply to plaintiff s memorandum)
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.2
|
$446
|
|
21
|
18.05.2018
|
Inspection of documents
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
1.5
|
$3,345
|
|
29
|
12.06.20 18
|
Sealing order
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.2
|
$446
|
|
22
|
28.06.2018
|
Filing interlocutory application
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.6
|
$1,338
|
|
|
28.09.2018
|
Filing memorandum for callover
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.2
|
$446
|
|
|
05.11.2018
|
Filing memorandum (plaintiff s defaults and timetable director
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.2
|
$446
|
|
12
|
12.02.2019
|
Filing joint memorandum (extend page limit for submissions)
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.2
|
$446
|
|
24
|
04.03.2019
|
Preparation of witness submissions
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
1.5
|
$3,345
|
|
25
|
04.03.20 19
|
Preparation of bundle for hearing
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.6
|
$1,338
|
|
11
|
11.03.2019
|
Filing memorandum for adjournment application
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.4
|
$892
|
|
12
|
12.03.20 19
|
Appearance at hearing of application
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
0.2
|
$446
|
|
|
14.03.20 19
|
Preparing for the hearing
|
2B
|
$2,230
|
1
|
$2,230
|
Total
* 50 per cent increased costs on scale costs - total costs $49,171.50 Disbursements
Filing fee for statement of defence
Filing fee for amended statement of defence Filing fee for interlocutory appli cadon Sealing fee
Copying costs for hearing bundles (Snap Prindng)
Total
$32,781
$110.00
$110.00
$500.00
$50.00
$685.85
$1,458.85
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2019/1387.html