Davis v Hogg

[2025] NZHC 2105

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2024-412-110

[2025] NZHC 2105

UNDER

the Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

ARTEMIS INDIGO DELILAH DAVIS

Applicant

AND

EMMA JULIE HOGG

Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

Applicant in person

J W Cowan for Respondent

Judgment:

30 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN (COSTS)

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 July 2025 at 2.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

DAVIS v HOGG [2025] NZHC 2105 [30 July 2025]

[1]                 In a judgment of 4 July 2025 I granted Ms Hogg’s application for summary judgment.1 I found that she was entitled to costs and invited memoranda to be filed as to the quantum of such costs.

[2]                 Ms Hogg’s counsel filed a memorandum in accordance with my direction but Ms Davis has not.

[3]                 Ms Davis did send an  email to the Registry asserting that the output of     Ms Hogg’s counsel could not extend beyond 0.5 of a business day for a competent practitioner. I do not accept that suggestion.

[4]                 I have considered Ms Hogg’s counsel’s memorandum as to the costs sought. Costs have been claimed on a 2B basis. The amount sought is entirely reasonable and less than what could have been claimed in the circumstances. I note in this regard that there have been claims for the filing of one interlocutory application and preparing submissions in relation to it, despite other applications having been made and argued. Those applications did not need to be determined because Ms Hogg’s summary judgment application was determinative of the proceeding.

[5]                 The costs claimed and the basis of calculation are in order. Ms Hogg is awarded costs against Ms Davis in the proceeding in the sum of $15,775 plus disbursements totalling $813.92.

O G Paulsen Associate Judge

Solicitors:
Anderson Lloyd, Dunedin

1      Davis v Hogg [2025] NZHC 1835.