Body Corporate 212050 v Hawkins Construction Limited

[2013] NZHC 335

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