Challenge Enterprises Limited v Police

[2016] NZHC 1501

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2013-485-10277 [2016] NZHC 1501

UNDER

Sections 138 and 139 of the Sale of Liquor

Act 1989

IN THE MATTER

of a reserved decision of the Alcohol
Regulatory and Licensing Authority dated
22 February 2013 in respect of application
N° 046/ON/526/2013

BETWEEN

CHALLENGE ENTERPRISES LIMITED Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE, CANNONS CREEK OPPORTUNITY CENTRE, MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, AND PORIRUA WHANAU CENTRE TRUST Respondents

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	G Manktelow for Appellant A Knowsley for Porirua Whanau Centre Trust A Pazin for Medical Officer of Health T Smith for New Zealand Police
Judgment:	4 July 2016

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J Costs

[1]      The Porirua Whanau Centre Trust seeks costs against Challenge Enterprises in respect of an abandoned appeal by Challenge Enterprises.   The other two respondents  to  the  appeal,  the New  Zealand  Police and  the Medical  Officer of Health, do not seek costs.

[2]      Challenge  Enterprises  contests  three  of  the  items  claims  by  the  Porirua

Whanau Centre Trust but not the other items.

CHALLENGE ENTERPRISES LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND POLICE & ORS [2016] NZHC 1501 [4 July

2016]

(a)       a joint memorandum for the case management conference filed on

12 June 2014 ($796) which was filed by the appellant’s counsel;

(b)      a joint memorandum for the case management conference filed on

9 September 2015 ($892) which was filed by the solicitors for the

New Zealand Police;

(c)       preparation for and appearance at a pre-trial conference on 9 February

2015 ($1,115).

[4]      It is correct that the two memoranda referred to were not filed by the solicitor for the Porirua Whanau Centre Trust.  Counsel claims entitlement to these costs on the basis of involvement with negotiating and drafting of the memoranda in order to arrive at the joint position.

[5]      In  relation  to  the  third  item,  Mr  Manktelow  submits  that  the  joint memorandum in relation to that hearing was filed by the solicitors for the New Zealand Police.  That is correct.  He also submits that the hearing was a chambers hearing not a pre-trial conference.   Such a distinction is immaterial.   However, although Mr Knowsley appeared at the hearing, Mr Manktelow is correct that he did not submit the joint memorandum, and the applications discussed at that hearing were  by  Mr  Manktelow  and  the  Police.     Accordingly,  the  preparation  by Mr Knowsley would have been minimal.

[6]      In light of the limited involvement of Mr Knowsley in the preparation of the three memoranda listed above, I decline full costs for those items and substitute a total of $1000 in recognition of the negotiation and drafting involved.   The other costs claimed are awarded, since they have not been contested.

Williams J

Solicitors:           G Manktelow, Wellington, for Appellant

Luke Cunningham Clere, Wellington, for New Zealand Police

Buddle Findlay, Wellington, for Medical Officer of Health

Rainey Collins, Wellington, for Porirua Whanau Centre Trust