Bremner v Body Corporate 51615

[2025] NZHC 3132

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2025-485-225

[2025] NZHC 3132

BETWEEN

ADRIENNE JEAN BREMNER

Applicant

AND

BODY CORPORATE 51615

Respondent

DAPHNE PATRICIA COLEMAN

Interested Party

On the papers:

Counsel:

A J Knowsley for Applicant

C P dS Tatley for Interested Party

Judgment:

21 October 2025

FINAL JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

[Costs]

[1]                 This is a final judgment as to costs and disbursements in this matter. In an interim judgment on costs I issued dated 7 October 2025, I noted an “interim result” at [32] as follows:

[32]For the reasons outlined, I now order and direct as follows:

(a)The applicant, Ms Bremner, is entitled to an award of her reasonable actual legal costs incurred of, and incidental to, this proceeding (and an order to this effect is now made against the respondent) but the amount of this award is still to be determined by the Court.

(b)In the meantime therefore, the actual amount by way of costs to be awarded to the applicant, Ms Bremner, against the Body Corporate and Ms Coleman is reserved.

(c)To assist the Court in determining this total amount for costs, counsel for the applicant is to file and serve within five

BREMNER v BODY CORPORATE 51615 (COSTS – FINAL) [2025] NZHC 3132 [21 October 2025]

working days of the date of this judgment a memorandum outlining the work involved in each of the indemnity costs invoices referred to in Schedule C, and addressing the claim for drafting submissions for the costs determination all as outlined in Mr Knowsley’s 16 September 2025 memorandum of submissions.

(d)Mr Calder, for the interested party, is then to have a period of a further five working days to file and serve any response to Mr Knowsley’s memorandum.

[2]                 A detailed memorandum of costs from Mr Knowsley dated 13 October 2025 has now been filed. In this, he sets out as Schedule A the legal services provided over the course of this proceeding and each invoice that has been rendered for those legal costs incurred by the applicant. These invoices including time records are attached to Mr Knowsley’s memorandum. It also includes an invoice dated 25 September 2025 for legal fees incurred by the applicant in the drafting of her submissions on costs.

[3]                 Mr Knowsley notes at [3] of his costs memorandum that a significant amount of time has been written off each invoice including a “Super Gold card discount” of

17.5 per cent. This was applied to the applicant given she is the holder of such a card and in accordance with Mr Knowsley’s firm’s policy at the time the file for the matter was opened.

[4]                 I have  now  had  an  opportunity  to  consider  the  detail  of  actual  costs  Mr Knowsley and his firm has incurred in this matter as outlined in his memorandum. I have considered the actual invoices and time records provided to support these, and also his schedule of disbursements totalling $5,415.50 for various service fees (including for service on other unit owners), for title searches, and for High Court scheduling and hearing fees.

[5]                 Counsel for the interested party, Daphne Coleman, has also filed a memorandum on this issue of costs and disbursements dated 17 October 2025. It confirms that the interested party “has no further submissions in relation to the applicant’s claim for an award of indemnity costs and disbursements”. It goes on to advise that the interested party, Ms Coleman, will abide the decision of the Court.

[6]                 There are no submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent, Body Corporate 51615.

[7]                 Weighing up all these matters, I am satisfied that Ms Bremner’s actual legal costs incurred of and incidental to this long-running proceeding and matters generally, as confirmed by Mr Knowsley’s 13 October 2025 calculations, at $52,939.15, are reasonable. Her disbursements incurred here totalling $5,415.50 similarly are reasonable and properly incurred.

[8]                 An order for payment of these costs and disbursements is to follow. It is expected that, given the principal thrust of this order is against the respondent, Body Corporate 51615, the total amount for costs and disbursements will be shared between all the owners of the various units including the applicant Ms Bremner on an equal basis.

[9]                 Notwithstanding this, for completeness, and given that both the Body Corporate as respondent, and Ms Coleman as interested party who participated throughout in this proceeding, were largely unsuccessful in opposing this application, notionally the award of costs and disbursements I am to make here will be against them both.

Order

[10]             An order is now made that the respondent, Body Corporate 51615, and the interested party, Ms Coleman, are jointly and severally to pay to the successful applicant, Ms Bremner, here (to settle her actual costs and disbursements with her lawyers), costs on this proceeding and incidental thereto totalling $52,939.15 together with disbursements totalling $5,415.50 making a total amount of $58,354.65.

Gendall J

Solicitors:
Gibson Sheat, Wellington for Interested Party