Bright v Auckland Council

[2016] NZHC 2117

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-000538 [2016] NZHC 2117

BETWEEN

PENELOPE MARY BRIGHT

Appellant

AND

AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Counsel:	Appellant in Person K F Quinn for Respondent
Judgment:	7 September 2016

COSTS JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 7 September 2016 at 3.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the

High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:           Auckland Council, Auckland

Copy to:            Appellant

BRIGHT v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 2117 [7 September 2016]

[1]      In a judgment delivered on 11 July 2016 the Court granted leave to Ms Bright to bring the appeal out of time but dismissed her appeal.   As to costs the Court recorded:1

[30]     The Council is entitled to costs.   Costs should be on a 2B basis subject only to the Council’s counsel filing a memorandum to confirm that the costs on a 2B basis do not exceed the actual costs incurred by Council on this appeal.

[2]      Counsel for the Council has filed a memorandum to confirm that costs on a

2B basis amount to $12,822.50 but that the Council’s lawyers charge-out rate applied to the estimated time spent preparing for the appeal of 40 hours results in sum of

$7,080.00. That is the sum the Council seeks by way of costs award.

[3]      High Court Rule 14.2(f) provides:

an award of costs should not exceed the costs incurred by the party claiming costs.

[4]      The fact the Council was represented by in-house counsel does not prevent it from recovering its costs.   In Henderson Borough Council v Auckland Regional Authority Cook J noted:2

[t]he fact that an employed practitioner has acted for the successful party is not a sufficient reason for denying that party an award of party and party costs: after all, the time of a salaried employee has been occupied.

[5]      While that case was decided before the new costs regime, cases decided under the Part 14 of the High Court Rules apply the same principle.3

[6]      The sum of costs sought by the Council of $7,080.00 is approved.   The

Registrar may seal the costs order in that sum.

Venning J

1      Bright v Auckland Council [2016] NZHC 1560.

2      Henderson Borough Council v Auckland Regional Authority [1984] 1 NZLR 16 (CA) at 23.

3      Inland Revenue v Harbour City Tow and Salvage (2003) Limited HC Wellington CIV-2006-485-

2002, 12 February 2007; and Grant v Pandey [2013] NZHC 3323.