Butch Pet Foods Ltd v Mac Motors Ltd

[2017] NZHC 2776

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-404-411 [2017] NZHC 2776

BETWEEN

BUTCH PET FOODS LTD

Appellant

AND

MAC MOTORS LTD Respondent

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Appearances:	P T Finnigan for Appellant M Wilkinson, Director of Respondent
Judgment:	13 November 2017

COSTS JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

Solicitors:

Romaniuk & Associates (Auckland) for Appellant

(Copy to Respondent in person)

BUTCH PET FOODS LTD v MAC MOTORS LTD [2017] NZHC 2776 [13 November 2017]

[2]      The appellant (Butch) sued the respondent (Mac) in the District Court for

$32,545.77.   It failed.   Mac was represented by its director and so costs against

Butch  were  limited  to  disbursements.    The  District  Court  Judge  fixed  these  at

$83,037.00, being mostly the costs of expert witnesses.

[3]      Butch  appealed  the  Judge’s  dismissal  of  its  claim  and  her  award  of

disbursements. Again, Mac was represented by its director.

[4]      In my judgment of 10 October 2017,1 I dismissed Butch’s substantive appeal

but reduced the disbursements award to $52,291.00.  I invited submissions on costs.

[5]      Butch now claims costs of $12,000 for being successful in having the award of disbursements reduced.   Mac, which cannot claim costs because of its lay representation, opposes being ordered to pay costs.

[6]      I have a clear view of how, on the merits and in the interests of justice, I

should exercise my discretion:

(a)       Butch lost its substantive case in the District Court and on appeal to this Court.

(b)Mac was put to considerable cost defending itself.  Its expenditure on expert witnesses was $109,487.73.

(c)       Butch escapes paying standard costs (which would be considerable)

because Mac was represented by its director.

(d)      Butch succeeded in reducing the proportion of Mac’s expenditure on

experts which it has to pay.

(e)       The claim brought by Butch was for $32,545.77.    The grounds of appeal did not have apparent merit, but required tedious examination.

1      Butch Pet Foods Ltd v Mac Motors Ltd [2017] NZHC 2473.

Brewer J