Blomfield v Slater - [2019] NZHC 171

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2013-404-5218

[2018] NZHC 171

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 First Defendant in person

Judgment:

15 February 2019

JUDGMENT OF PAUL DAVISON J

[Re costs and application by plaintiff for lifting of suppression of judgment]

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 February 2019 at 2:15 pm Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Bytalus Legal, Auckland

BLOMFIELD v SLATER [2018] NZHC 171 [15 February 2019]

[1] This judgment deals with applications made by the plaintiff Mr Blomfield, seeking: costs on the determined interlocutory applications; a direction on the payment of Court fees in relation to the hearing of those interlocutory applications; and requesting the Court to review the issue of suppression of my judgment detailing the reasons for determining those interlocutory applications.

Background

[1] Following two results judgments on 27 September and 16 October 2018, on 26 October 2018, I released a judgment detailing my reasons for ruling in favour of the plaintiff on several interlocutory matters, 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 affirmative statement of claim;

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

(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

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

[2] In the two results judgments, I ordered that the costs on the interlocutory applications was reserved.1

[3] I also made an interim order prohibiting publication of the reasons judgment and any part of the proceeding in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial.

1 Blomfield v Slater [2018] NZHC 2538 at [11] and Blomfield v Slater [2018] NZHC 2679 at [10].

Filing of memoranda

[4] Counsel for the plaintiff filed a memorandum on 23 November 2018 seeking orders as to costs and the lifting of suppression.

[5] As of the date of this judgment, almost three months later, the defendants have not filed any response. As the time for filing a response has well passed, I will proceed to determine these applications.

Application for costs and the direction as to Court fees

[6] The plaintiff seeks an order for costs. The plaintiff says that it was appropriate for the issue of costs on the interlocutory applications to be reserved in the context of an impending trial as the issue of costs on the substantive matter was soon to be heard and determined. However, now that the trial has been adjourned pending appeal against my determination of the interlocutory matters, the plaintiff says that…

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 [2018] NZHC 171
Case: [2019] NZHC 171
Decision Date: 15 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Blomfield v Slater, the plaintiff sought determination of costs and direction as to the payment of court fees for interlocutory applications, as well as the lifting of a suppression order on the judgment. The interlocutory applications dealt with the defendants’ applications for security for costs, for leave to amend their statements of claim and defence, and an adjournment of the trial. The plaintiff also sought to introduce evidence regarding the admissibility of evidence proposed to be adduced by the defendants. The defendants did not respond to the plaintiff’s application to lift the suppression order. The court held that ordinarily costs on an opposed interlocutory application are to be fixed when the application is determined. However, in this case, the trial had been adjourned pending the determination of an appeal against the court’s ruling on those interlocutory matters, and so a special reason existed for not fixing costs at this stage. The court also directed that $12,800 of the balance owing for Court fees be recovered from the defendants, and the remaining $1,600 from the plaintiff. Finally, the court lifted the suppression order on the judgment, finding that the reasons judgment did not contain any confidential information of the defendants, nor any information that would be likely to adversely affect the defendants’ fair trial interests if released for publication.

The legal issues before the court were whether the costs on the interlocutory applications should be fixed at that time, whether the defendants should be required to pay $12,800 of the balance owing for Court fees, and whether the suppression order on the judgment should be lifted. The court held that the costs should not be fixed at that time, as the outcome of the appeal on those interlocutory matters may reverse any decision the court was to make regarding costs. The court also held that the defendants should be required to pay $12,800 of the balance owing for Court fees, as the plaintiff would have incurred significant legal costs in successfully arguing against the interlocutory applications brought by the defendants, but which the court was declining to presently award him costs for. Finally, the court lifted the suppression order on the judgment, finding that there was no threat to the fair trial rights of the defendants by the publication of the proceedings.

The court's reasoning was that ordinarily costs on an opposed interlocutory application are to be fixed when the application is determined. However, in this case, the trial had been adjourned pending the determination of an appeal against the court’s ruling on those interlocutory matters, and so a special reason existed for not fixing costs at this stage. The court also held that the defendants should be required to pay $12,800 of the balance owing for Court fees, as the plaintiff would have incurred significant legal costs in successfully arguing against the interlocutory applications brought by the defendants, but which the court was declining to presently award him costs for. Finally, the court lifted the suppression order on the judgment, finding that there was no threat to the fair trial rights of the defendants by the publication of the proceedings. The court held that the reasons judgment did not contain any confidential information of the defendants, nor any information that would be likely to adversely affect the defendants’ fair trial interests if released for publication.

The final orders were that the costs on the interlocutory applications brought by the defendants were not to be determined at this time, that the Registrar recover $12,800 of the balance owing for Court fees from the defendants, that the remaining $1,600 be recovered from the plaintiff, and that the suppression order, prohibiting publication of the reasons judgment of 26 October 2018 and any part of the proceeding until the final disposition of the trial, be lifted effective forthwith.

Orders