Body Corporate 212050 v Hawkins Construction Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2011-404-004515 [2013] NZHC 335

BETWEEN BODY CORPORATE 212050
First Plaintiff

ANDTZU-YING LEE & OTHERS Second Plaintiffs

ANDHAWKINS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED First Defendant

ANDJAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Second Defendant

ANDSCOTT ALLEN Third Defendant

ANDMATTHEW VESEY First Third Party

ANDLYNDON LEE MCDOUGALL Second Third Party

Counsel: PR Grimshaw and SE Mitchell for Plaintiffs HA Brown and P Patterson for First Defendant KW Kemp and OR Stewart for Second Defendant

Judgment: 27 February 2013

JUDGMENT OF ASHER J

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 at 4.30pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Grimshaw & Co, DX CX 10174, Auckland 1140.
Email: [email protected] and [email protected]
Kensington Swan, DX SP 26517, Auckland 1140. Email: [email protected]
Chapman Tripp, PO Box 2206, Auckland 1140.
Email: [email protected] and [email protected]

BODY CORPORATE 212050 V HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION LTD HC AK CIV-2011-404-004515 [27
February 2013]

[1] In a judgment of 14 December 2012 I declined the request of the first and second defendants to direct in essence a split hearing with a first hearing on limitation issues.[1] I ordered costs against the first and second defendants on a 2B basis.

[1] Body Corporate 212050 v Hawkins Construction Ltd [2012] NZHC 3433.

[2] The parties cannot agree as to whether expert costs of $5,018.08 are properly payable.

[3] The photocopying costs of $1,050 do not appear to be in dispute, and I direct that they are a reasonable disbursement and are to be paid as part of the costs.

[4] I do not, however, accept that it Is necessary that the cost of the affidavits of the plaintiff’s experts should be paid. Expert evidence did not figure in the hearing. Further, it is far from clear to me that the report of Mr Batchelor will not be of use at a later stage in the proceeding. Significant disbursements of this nature must be clearly justified, particularly in the context of a short interlocutory hearing of this type. This expert disbursement has not been so justified and is not allowed.

[5] Accordingly I direct that the disbursements are to be photocopying fees of

$1,050, but not the other disbursement claimed.

……………………………..

Asher J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand Auckland Registry was presented with a dispute between Body Corporate 212050 and Hawkins Construction Limited, with additional parties including Tzu-Ying Lee and Others, James Hardie New Zealand Limited, Scott Allen, Matthew Vesey, and Lyndon Lee McDougall. The primary issue before the court was the determination of whether expert costs, amounting to $5,018.08, were properly payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs. Additionally, the court needed to decide if photocopying costs of $1,050 were a reasonable disbursement to be covered by the defendants.

The court deliberated on the necessity of expert costs, noting that such evidence did not feature in the current hearing and questioning the future utility of the expert's report. The court found that significant disbursements of this nature require clear justification, especially in the context of an interlocutory hearing. Given that the expert evidence was not used in the current proceedings, the court deemed it unnecessary to order the defendants to cover these costs. Conversely, the photocopying costs were deemed reasonable and necessary, leading the court to direct that these costs of $1,050 were to be paid by the defendants.

Asher J concluded that only the photocopying fees of $1,050 were to be paid by the defendants, rejecting the claim for the expert costs. This decision was made based on the lack of justification for the expert disbursements and the limited context in which they would be used. The court's ruling emphasized the need for clear justification when claiming significant disbursements, particularly in interim hearings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established