Codylan Farms Limited v Northern Farm Services Limited

[2015] NZHC 2584

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CIV-2013-043-262 [2015] NZHC 2584

BETWEEN

CODYLAN FARMS LIMITED

First Plaintiff

VERO INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

AND

NORTHERN FARM SERVICES LIMITED

Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	A W M Britton for First and Second Plaintiffs P J Napier and N J Pye for Defendant
Judgment:	20 October 2015

COSTS JUDGMENT OF M PETERS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice M Peters on 20 October 2015 at 4 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ...................................

Solicitors:           C & M Legal, New Plymouth

Keegan Alexander, Auckland

CODYLAN FARMS LTD v NORTHERN FARM SERVICES LTD [2015] NZHC 2584 [20 October 2015]

[1]      I have considered the parties’ memoranda of 21 and 28 August and 5 October

2015.

Interest on counterclaim debt

[2]     I am unable to determine the issues now raised by the First Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) as to interest on the counterclaim.  I am functus officio in respect of the matter.

First Plaintiff ’s costs and disbursements

[3]      I have considered the parties’ memoranda on the matter in dispute, namely the claim in respect of step 34 and the disbursement in respect of hearing time.  I allow those items as if for a four day trial.

Costs on District Court or High Court scale

[4]      The Plaintiffs submit that I should allow the Defendant’s costs only in the sum that would be payable under the District Court Rules.   I do not accept this submission.  The nature of the issues in the proceeding were sufficient to warrant a hearing in the High Court and it was not unreasonable for the Defendant to seek a transfer as it did.

Defendant’s costs and disbursements on Second Plaintiff ’s claim

[5]      As I understand it, the Second Plaintiff does not object to the costs and disbursements that the Defendant seeks on its defence of the Second Plaintiff’s claim and I award those costs, as shown on Schedule D to the Defendant’s memorandum of

28 August 2015.

Defendant’s costs and disbursements in respect of counterclaim

[6]      The First Plaintiff contends that the Defendant should not have costs and disbursements beyond filing its counterclaim because thereafter the Defendant knew the First Plaintiff did not dispute the counterclaim and it was open to the Defendant to seek to seal judgment (see High Court Rules, r 15.7).  Had the Defendant done so, it could not have claimed costs/disbursements in respect of subsequent steps.

[7]      As a matter of principle I think that must be correct, whether by reference to

High Court Rules, r 14.7(f)(ii) or 14.7(g).

[8]      Accordingly, in respect of the counterclaim, I allow the Defendant costs in respect of step 4 and the filing fee payable on the counterclaim, both as shown on Schedule C to its memorandum of 28 August 2015.

..................................................................

M Peters J