Barker v Queenstown Lakes District Council no.2 HC Invercargill CIV 2005-425-000453

[2007] NZHC 1884

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CIV 2005-425-000453

BETWEEN  ROSS BRYAN BARKER Plaintiff

ANDQUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL

Defendant

Hearing:         On Papers

Judgment:      21 June 2007

COSTS JUDGMENT NO. 2 OF FOGARTY J

[1]      On 20 December this Court awarded the residents costs on a 2B basis with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.   Leave was reserved to receive further submissions if the plaintiff and residents’ solicitors could not agree costs on this basis.

[2]      By memorandum dated 5 February, counsel for the residents reported to the Court that they have been unable to resolve costs with the plaintiff.   In that memorandum they now sought their costs award of $16,480 plus disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.  They provided a schedule of costs.  On 3 April they filed a further memorandum now seeking, in addition, a further award of costs, as the Court deemed appropriate, on the subject of the matters subsequent to the costs decision - their efforts to resolve the question of costs.

[3]      The Court Registry have been pressing Ms Vidal, counsel for the plaintiff, for submissions in reply.   On my last circuit to Invercargill I spoke to her employee

Ms Murdoch and reiterated the need for submissions.

BARKER V QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL HC INV CIV 2005-425-000453  21 June 2007

[4]      Last week in Christchurch when Ms Vidal appeared before me I reiterated the need for submissions and gave Monday, 18 June, as the deadline.

[5]      The original deadline for filing submissions was Friday, 23 March.  That was to  reply to  the  submissions  of  counsel  for  the  residents  calculating  costs  dated

5 February.

[6]      It was against the passing of that deadline that at my request Court staff have continued to press Ms Vidal, and I have done so personally.   This Court has bent over backwards to give the plaintiff the opportunity to make submissions on the detail of the calculations.   The time has come to issue a judgment.   The residents cannot enforce judgment for costs until an order is made.  An order should have been made late March/early April.  We are now reaching the end of June.

[7]      I am not going to order additional costs to the memorandum for the trouble that the residents’ counsel have been put to.  This is largely due to the difficulty in calculating an appropriate sum.  It could not, in any event, be more than about $500. The result is that the residents are awarded $16,480 costs with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.

Solicitors:

Berry & Co, Queenstown, for Plaintiff

Ross Dowling Marquet Griffin, Dunedin, for Defendant Bray Morrall Law, Christchurch, for Professor Goodwin Anderson Lloyd Caudwell, Christchurch, for Mr Muirhead & Ors