Adamson v Hutt Valley District Health Board

[2022] NZHC 1860

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2021-485-527

[2022] NZHC 1860

BETWEEN

IAN ADAMSON

Plaintiff/Respondent

AND

HUTT VALLEY DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD

First Defendant/First Applicant

SHELLEY JAMES

Second Defendant/Second Applicant

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

Plaintiff in person

D R La Hood and S B McCusker for Defendants

Judgment:

29 July 2022

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE JOHNSTON

[Costs]

[1]                  In my judgment of 15 June 2022 I struck out Mr Adamson’s defamation claim on three bases:

(a)That it was not pleaded in accordance with s 37 of the Defamation Act 1992;

(b)That it did not disclose an arguable claim; and

ADAMSON v HUTT VALLEY DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2022] NZHC 1860 [29 July 2022]

(c)That, in any event, in terms of the principles articulated in Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd,1 the resources that would be necessary to accommodate the case were not justified.

[2]                  I concluded by saying that on the face of things the defendants as the successful parties were entitled to a costs award.

[3]                  Apparently, the defendants’ solicitors have attempted to engage with the plaintiff in relation to costs but have been ignored.

[4]                  By memorandum dated 27 July 2022 the defendants now seek costs. Counsel have calculated costs on a 2B basis, correctly as far as I can see, at $13,264.50. There are also disbursements of $610.

[5]                  However, Mr La Hood and Mr McCusker inform me that the defendants’ actual costs were appreciably less. They total $11,741.04. The principle is that costs are generally calculated in accordance with the scales provided for in the High Court Rules 2016, but that a party is not entitled to claim anything more than their actual costs. Accordingly, the defendants seek their actual costs, together with the disbursements already referred to.

[6]                  Mr Andrews has filed a memorandum in reply. He says that he cannot afford to pay costs. That is not a proper basis for resisting a costs order. In short there is nothing that Mr Andrews says in his memorandum that dissuades me from making the costs order that I anticipated making when issuing my original judgment.

[7]                  There will be a costs order in favour of the defendants against the plaintiff in the total sum of $12,351.04 inclusive of costs and disbursements.

Associate Judge Johnston

Solicitors:
Luke Cunningham Clere, Wellington for defendants

1      Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 1414, [2011] 1 WLR 1985 (QB).