Brkic v White

[2017] NZHC 2542

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2015-404-003066

[2017] NZHC 2542

BETWEEN

GORDON ESAD BRKIC, EMILIJA

BRKIC AND NAGI LOFTY FALTAUS
Plaintiffs

AND

CAROLINE RUTH WHITE AND CRUMMER TRUSTEES NO.82 LIMITED

Defendants

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	18 October 2017

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

(Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday, 18 October 2017 at 4 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:

Haigh Lyon Lawyers, Auckland.

Churton Hart & Divers Ltd, Auckland. PL Rice, Auckland.

L Herzog, Auckland.

BRKIC v WHITE [2017] NZHC 2542 [18 October 2017]

[1]    On 29 September 2017 I acceded to the defendants’ adjournment application in relation to a trial that was to commence on 2 October 2017 (the next business day). For the plaintiffs, Mr Rice seeks wasted costs of $8,028 on a 2B basis (three days’ trial preparation and costs in connection with the adjournment teleconference). For the defendants, Mr Herzog resists on the basis costs should await the outcome of trial.

[2]    I disagree. Wasted costs are frequently imposed on a party whose default resulted in an adjournment of a trial. There is no reason to depart from that principle, particularly when, as my adjournment decision makes plain, the defendants should have considered joining a third party long before the eve of trial. Nor is the scale of wasted costs unreasonable having regard to the nature of the case, matters in issue and size of the common bundle.

[3]The defendants are liable for wasted costs in the sum of $8,028.

[4]    Mr Rice also sought an “unless” order in connection with payment of wasted costs. This aspect was unsupported by a formal application or reference to authority. I decline to make such an order for these reasons.

……………………………..

Downs J