Blomfield v Slater - [2019] NZHC 1203

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2013-404-5218

[2019] NZHC 1203

BETWEEN
MATTHEW JOHN BLOMFIELD

Plaintiff

AND

CAMERON JOHN SLATER

First Defendant

AND

SOCIAL MEDIA CONSULTANTS LIMITED

Second Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

F E Geiringer for Plaintiff

No appearance by or on behalf of the defendants

Judgment:

29 May 2019

JUDGMENT OF PAUL DAVISON J

[Re: Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 May 2019 at 5:00 pm Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Bytalus Legal, Auckland

BLOMFIELD v SLATER COSTS JUDGMENT [2019] NZHC 1203 [29 May 2019]

Introduction

[1] By memorandum dated 23 November 2018, Mr Blomfield (the plaintiff), seeks an award of costs against Mr Slater and Social Media Consultants Limited (collectively “the defendants”), in relation to several interlocutory matters. The plaintiff was successful in relation to each interlocutory matter, and the defendants appealed those decisions.

[2] By judgment dated 15 February 2019, I declined to determine the costs on the interlocutory matters at that time. I said that “a special reason exists for not fixing costs as between the parties … because the outcome of the appeal on those interlocutory matters may reverse any decision I was to make regarding costs.”1

[3] The defendants having since abandoned their appeals, the plaintiff again applies for an award of costs on those interlocutory matters.

Background

[4] Following two results judgments on 27 September and 16 October 2018,2 on 26 October 2018, I released a judgment detailing my reasons for ruling in favour of the plaintiff on several interlocutory matters.3 The interlocutory matters dealt with in those judgments were:

(a)the defendants’ application for security for costs;

(b)the defendants’ application for leave to file a fourth amended statement of defence;

(c)the defendants’ application for leave to file a fifth amended statement of defence;

(d)the defendants’ application for an adjournment of the trial for a day to enable counsel to prepare the fifth amended statement of defence; and

1      Blomfield v Slater [2018] NZHC 171 at [8].
2      Blomfield v Slater [2018] NZHC 2538; and Blomfield v Slater [2018] NZHC 2679.
3      Blomfield v Slater [2018] NZHC 2781.

(e)the plaintiff’s application challenging the admissibility of evidence proposed to be adduced by the defendants.

[5] In the two results judgments, I ordered that the costs on the interlocutory applications were reserved. I directed that the trial was to proceed as scheduled on Tuesday 23 October 2018.

[6] The defendants subsequently filed an appeal against those decisions in the Court of Appeal. The trial was thereafter adjourned.

[7] On 27 February 2019, the first defendant filed an application to be adjudicated bankrupt with the Official Assignee. Pursuant to s 47(1) of the Insolvency Act 2006, the first defendant was automatically adjudicated bankrupt.

[8] On behalf of the first defendant, the Official Assignee thereafter abandoned the first defendant’s appeal on 14 March 2019, by notice filed in the Court of Appeal.

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Blomfield v Slater

Details

AGLC: Blomfield v Slater [2019] NZHC 1203
Case: [2019] NZHC 1203
Decision Date: 29 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Blomfield v Slater was heard in the High Court of New Zealand. The plaintiff, Matthew John Blomfield, sought an award of costs against the defendants, Cameron John Slater and Social Media Consultants Limited, in relation to several interlocutory matters that were previously successful for the plaintiff. The defendants had appealed the decisions, but subsequently abandoned their appeals, prompting the plaintiff to apply again for an award of costs on those interlocutory matters.

The legal issues the court was required to decide related to the costs sought by the plaintiff, including whether the proceedings should be categorised as Category 3, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover costs on a mixed 3A/3B/3C basis, including 3C costs with a 50 per cent uplift in relation to the plaintiff's wasted preparation for trial.

The court's reasoning and outcome were that there were no longer any special reasons as to why costs on the interlocutory applications should not be fixed. The court agreed with the plaintiff that the proceedings should appropriately be categorised as Category 3, as the legal issues concerning the pleading of the defences of truth and honest opinion were complex and fell within a specialist area of law. The court also found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover costs on a mixed 3A/3B/3C basis, except for the amount claimed for wasted preparation for trial. The court allowed the full amount of disbursements sought by the plaintiff, totalling $10,160.29.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff is entitled to costs and disbursements of $59,000.29, as set out in the annexed schedule to the judgment. The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs and disbursements in the amount specified in the schedule.

Orders