Driver v Radio New Zealand Limited

[2020] NZHC 2907

For a court-ready version, please follow this link (fee required).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2017-485-443

[2020] NZHC 2907

UNDER

the Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

DENISE DRIVER

Plaintiff

AND

RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

First Defendant

STUFF LIMITED
Second Defendant

TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Third Defendant

MEDIAWORKS HOLDINGS LIMITED
Fourth Defendant

SKY NETWORK TELEVISION LIMITED

Fifth Defendant

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

P A McKnight and A J Romanos for Plaintiff

R K P Stewart and T F Cleary for First, Second and Fourth Defendants

D M Salmon for Third Defendant L A O’Gorman for Fifth Defendant

Judgment:

5 November 2020

JUDGMENT OF CLARK J (COSTS)

DRIVER v RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2907 [5 November 2020]

[1]                 In my judgment delivered 12 December 2019 I granted the first to fourth defendants’ interlocutory application to strike out the plaintiff’s causes of action in defamation. Two of the plaintiff’s four claims for invasion of privacy were also struck out.1 In short, only two of the plaintiff’s twelve causes of action survived the strike- out applications.

[2]                 The defendants seek costs. Unfortunately, the documents filed in March 2020 (a week prior to the COVID 19 lockdown) were not brought to my attention for many months.

Background

[3]                 The question of costs is somewhat complicated by the complex nature of the interlocutory proceedings. The factual and litigation background is set out in the substantive decision at [5]–[11]. Briefly, the plaintiff filed defamation proceedings in May 2017 following the defendants’ reports of her arrest in India. The defendants sought to strike out several of the causes of action on the basis they were barred by the Limitation Act 2010.

[4]                 In December 2017, Ellis J declined the plaintiff’s application to extend the primary limitation period in relation to all of her claims and dismissed the defendants’ strike-out application in relation to all other claims.2 In 2018, third, fourth and fifth amended statements of claim were filed. An application filed by the defendants to strike out the defamation claims was amended after the filing of Ms Driver’s fifth amended statement of claim in which she added causes of action for invasion of privacy. Ultimately, the following matters were argued over a four-day interlocutory hearing before me:

(a)a strike-out of the defamation claim against each defendant;

(b)in the alternative, and in relation to each publication relied on by the plaintiff not struck out, determination of the late knowledge date for

1      Driver v Radio New Zealand Ltd [2019] NZHC 3275 [Substantive decision].

2      Driver v Radio New Zealand Ltd [2017] NZHC 3188 [Ellis J strike-out decision].

each such publication; and

(c)the applications to strike out the causes of action for invasion of privacy against each defendant.

[5]The final result was set out at [148]–[150] of the substantive decision:3

[148]In relation to the claims in defamation:

(a)all publications attributed to the first to fourth defendants were reasonably discoverable before 25 May 2015, and the publications attributed to the fifth defendant were reasonably discoverable before 20 July 2015;

(b)less than minor harm to the plaintiff’s reputation arose from the publications remaining online after 25 May 2015;

(c)the limitation period for money claims applies by analogy to the plaintiff’s claims for a declaration under the Defamation Act;

and therefore, all claims in defamation are struck out.

[149]    The plaintiff’s claims for invasion of privacy based on publication of passport details and residential address, and the reactions of members of her family to her arrest, are struck out.

[150]    In relation to the claims for invasion of privacy based on publication of the fact of Ms Driver’s arrest and the video footage of her being confronted in her hotel room, the application to strike out is dismissed.

[6]The plaintiff’s position is that costs should lie where they fall because:

(a)the defendants were successful in striking out the plaintiff’s claims in defamation; but

(b)the plaintiff was successful in resisting the main aspects of the application to strike out the privacy claims. The two claims struck out are said to be comparatively minor and each affected only one defendant.

3      Substantive decision, above n 1.

[7]                 The plaintiff further says it would not be just to award costs in relation to steps taken in response to her defamation claims prior to her statement of claim being amended on 9 October 2018 to include claims for invasion of privacy. Counsel for Ms Driver submit these earlier steps were a result of the defendants’ inefficient approach in making staggered strike-out applications seemingly for tactical reasons. Had the defendants approached the issues more efficiently, nearly all the steps in the proceeding for which they now claim costs, would not have occurred. Alternatively, the plaintiff submits that costs should be reserved until the conclusion of the proceedings.

[8]                 The defendants seek costs on a 2B basis in respect of all steps in relation to their successful application to strike out the defamation claims and the “mini trial” relating to termination of the late knowledge date. In respect of the partly successful application to strike out the privacy claims, the defendants say costs should lie where they fall.

Decision

[9]                 I decline to rule that all costs should lie where they fall or that they should be reserved until the conclusion of the proceeding, as the plaintiff suggests. As all the plaintiff’s claims in defamation were struck out and two of the four claims for invasion of privacy were struck out, the balance of success lies firmly with the defendants.

[10]              Unless there are special reasons to do otherwise, costs on an interlocutory application are to be fixed and paid when the application is determined.4 There are no special reasons justifying departure from that principle in this case. The objective of the rules is to achieve predictability, consistency and expediency in fixing and paying costs.5

[11]              The plaintiff proposes a further basis for refusing an order for costs or for reducing costs. It is said the proceeding concerned a matter of public interest and that the issues the case confronted are “novel and untested”. I do not share the plaintiff’s

4      High Court Rules 2016, r 14.8.

5      Rule 14.2(1)(g).

approach to costs on these bases. One has only to consider the seven (in total) statements of claim to see the development over time of the plaintiff’s personal interest in advancing her claims for defamation. She was entitled to seek to protect her interests in this way but her interests were entirely personal. There was no element of public interest. Nor was there any element of public interest in the claims for breach of privacy which were essentially a response to the defendants’ applications to strike out the fourth amended statement of claim. Similarly, I do not accept the plaintiff’s contention that it would not be just to award costs in relation to steps taken prior to   9 October 2018. As summarised in the judgment:

[8] A third amended statement of claim was filed on 25 January 2018 followed by statements of defence and replies to statements of defence. A fourth amended claim filed in July 2018 was the catalyst for a further round of pleadings. There followed an application to strike out, a fifth amended statement of claim, statements of defence and notices of discontinuance against some defendants.

99] The statement of claim has undergone something of a metamorphosis since the defendants filed their application to strike out on 19 September 2018. That application was based on the  fourth  amended  statement  of  claim.  Ms Driver did not respond with a notice of opposition but on 9 October 2018 filed a fifth amended statement of claim adding against each defendant a cause of action for invasion of privacy.

[10]      On 23 November 2018, the defendants amended their interlocutory application so as to:

(a)strike out the claim against each defendant; or, in the alternative,

(b)determine before trial the question of the late knowledge date for each publication relied on by the plaintiff that is not struck out; and

(c)strike out the causes of action claiming invasion of privacy against each defendant and certain items allegedly broadcast by the third and fourth defendants on 8 and 9 December 2014.

[11]      On 5 December 2018, the matter was set down to be heard in March 2019. On 31 January 2019, Ms Driver filed a notice of opposition to the defendants’ interlocutory application but consented to a pre-trial determination of the question of late knowledge dates in relation to each publication she relies upon. By February 2019, however, the interlocutory issues had expanded. Longer hearing time was needed and the interlocutory matters were set down for hearing in July 2019. On 11 April 2019, Ms Driver filed a sixth amended statement of claim adding further publications and specifying additional late knowledge dates.

[12]     The procedural history is undoubtedly complex but it seems to me that any inefficiency, if there was any, was driven by the plaintiff. There is no basis for refusing costs for those steps.

Costs in relation to the hearing

[13]     I agree with the defendants that the approach to costs needs to recognise that the four-day hearing involved:

(a)a trial6 on the preliminary question of late knowledge dates, which effectively disposed of most of the plaintiff’s defamation claims;

(b)a strike-out hearing on the remaining defamation claims; and

(c)a strike-out hearing on the invasion of privacy claims.

[14]     Although the hearing occupied four days the defendants have claimed costs for three days of preparation to recognise that the fourth day was substantially directed to the privacy claims.

[15]     In relation to the plaintiff’s argument that the issues in the case were novel and untested, I did regard two points that arose as being novel.

(a)In considering the possibility that the privacy tort exists to protect values and interests recognised in the context of New Zealand’s social and cultural norms I considered it was reasonably arguable that an expectation of privacy should be determined in the context of its publication in New Zealand rather than in the context of the events that were publicised (which occurred in India). I added: “[t]his is a novel point and was not the subject of submissions before me. It would be necessary to address this at trial.”7 That observation does not suggest one party or another should bear a liability for costs.

6      In the earlier strike-out decision of Ellis J the Court was not prepared to strike out the remaining publications on the basis that “whether a plaintiff has late knowledge of a claim is a matter of fact to be proven at trial”: Ellis J strike-out decision, above n 2, at [27].

7      Substantive decision, above n 1, at [124].

(b)In the context of the first of Ms Driver’s four privacy claims namely that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fact of her arrest and the details of the allegations against her, I made the following observation: “[w]hether consideration of the circumstances of publication extends to inaccurate or embellished reporting is an open (and novel) question not to be summarily dismissed”.8 I regarded this claim as the most complicated category and the one given the most attention in counsels’ submissions.9 This claim was not struck out.

[16]     I will address the disbursements to the plaintiff in recognition of her partial success in relation to the application to strike out her privacy claims. For the moment it is sufficient to state that, to the extent I regarded any of the points that emerged in my consideration of the privacy jurisprudence as “novel” — and that therefore they should be argued — that does not disentitle the defendants to their costs in the proceeding nor justify any reduction in costs to be awarded to them.

[17]     In summary, as two of the four privacy claims were not struck out costs in relation to the privacy claims should lie where they fall (insofar as they can be divorced from the steps taken for the defamation claim), but I accept that Ms Driver is entitled to an order for disbursements for her expert witness in recognition of her partial success. I deal with that topic at [34]–[35].

Approach to calculation of steps

[18]     The defendants are entitled to costs on all steps taken exclusively in defence of the defamation claims. The defendants have made adjustments to the calculation of costs to avoid claiming steps taken in relation to the privacy claims. For example:

(a)Costs are claimed for preparing and filing statements of defence up until the fifth amended statement of claim (when the plaintiff added the causes of action related to invasion of privacy). However, costs for responding to the fifth statement of claim have been included as the

8 At [138].

9 At [99].

fifth statement of claim included new claims for defamation which have since been struck out.

(b)The costs associated with discovery are reduced by 75 per cent to recognise that part of the discovery is relevant to their unsuccessful application for strike-out. The defendants maintain an entitlement to 25 per cent as some of the discovery was relevant to their defence to the defamation claim.

(c)The defendants have claimed costs for only three days to recognise that the fourth day of the hearing was primarily directed to the privacy claim.

[19]     The adjustments appear to be reasonable. The defendants attached three schedules with their memorandum on costs. I reproduce their schedule two: total costs and disbursements for the defendants. I have added a column to explain the adjustments made by the defendants to the scale costs claimed.

Step	Description	Days	Amount	Explanation
2	Commencement of defence by first defendant (RNZ)	2	$4,780
2	Commencement of defence by second defendant (Stuff)	2	$4,780
2	Commencement of defence by third defendant (TVNZ)	2	$4,780
2	Commencement of defence by fourth defendant (Mediaworks)	2	$4,780
9	Amended pleading by RNZ to fourth amended statement of claim	0.6	$1,434
9	Amended pleading by Stuff to fourth amended statement of claim	0.6	$1,434
9	Amended pleading by TVNZ to fourth amended statement of claim	0.6	$1,434
9	Amended pleading by Mediaworks to fourth amended statement of claim	0.6	$1,434
9	Amended pleading by RNZ to fifth amended statement of claim	0.6	$1,434
10	Preparation for first case management conference (RNZ)	0.4	$956

10	Preparation for first case management conference (Stuff)	0.4	$956
10	Preparation for first case management conference (TVNZ)	0.4	$956
10	Preparation for first case management conference (Mediaworks)	0.4	$956
11	Joint memorandum of counsel dated 30 April 2018	0.5	$1,195	Uplift of 25 per cent reflects collaboration between all four defendants.
11	Memoranda of counsel for Mediaworks dated 18 June 2018	0.4	$956
11	Joint memorandum of counsel dated 18 October 2018	0.5	$1,195	Uplift of 25 per cent reflects collaboration between all four defendants.
11	Joint memorandum of counsel dated 20 December 2018	0.5	$1,195
11	Joint memorandum of counsel dated 12 March 2019	0.5	$1,195
11	Joint memorandum of counsel dated 21 March 2019	0.5	$1,195
11	Joint memorandum of counsel dated 21 June 2019	0.5	$1,195
11	Joint memorandum of counsel dated 2 December 2019	0.5	$1,195
13	Appearance at teleconference dated 19 June 2018 (RNZ)	0.3	$717
13	Appearance at case management conference 19 June 2018	0.3	$717	Divided between Stuff, TVNZ and Mediaworks.
13	Appearance at case management conference 24 October 2018 (RNZ)	0.3	$717
13	Appearance at case management conference 24 October 2018 (Stuff)	0.3	$717
13	Appearance at case management conference 24 October 2018 (TVNZ)	0.3	$717
13	Appearance at case management conference 24 October 2018 (Mediaworks)	0.3	$717
13	Appearance at case management conference 19 June 2018	0.3	$717	To be divided between the defendants.
13	Appearance at teleconference dated 11 February 2019	0.3	$717	Divided between RNZ and Stuff
20	List of documents on discovery (RNZ)	0.625	$1,493.75	Reduced by 75 per cent to reflect some documents related to privacy claims.
20	List of documents on discovery (Stuff)	0.625	$1,493.75
20	List of documents on discovery (TVNZ)	0.625	$1,493.75
20	List of documents on discovery (Mediaworks)	0.625	$1,493.75
21	Inspection of documents (RNZ)	1.5	$3,585

21	Inspection of documents (Stuff)	1.5	$3,585
21	Inspection of documents (TVNZ)	1.5	$3,585
21	Inspection of documents (Mediaworks)	1.5	$3,585
22	Filing interlocutory application	$1,434	$1,434
24	Preparation of written submissions	1.875	$4,481.25	Uplift of 25 per cent reflects collaboration between all four defendants.
30	Preparation of affidavits, list of issues or authorities, agreeing common bundle (RNZ)	4	$9,560
30	Preparation of affidavits, list of issues or authorities, agreeing common bundle (Stuff)	4	$9,560
30	Preparation of affidavits, list of issues or authorities, agreeing common bundle (TVNZ)	4	$9,560
30	Preparation of affidavits, list of issues or authorities, agreeing common bundle (Mediaworks)	4	$9,560
31	Additional allowance for preparing common bundle	0.5	$1,195
32	Preparation for hearing (RNZ)	4	$9,560
32	Preparation for hearing (Stuff)	4	$9,560
32	Preparation for hearing (TVNZ)	4	$9,560
32	Preparation for hearing (Mediaworks)	4	$9,560
34	Appearance for primary counsel	3	$7,170	Divided between RNZ, Stuff and Mediaworks
34	Appearance for principal counsel (TVNZ)	3	$7,170
35	Second counsel	1.5	$3,585	Divided between RNZ, Stuff and Mediaworks

[20]In relation to specific scale cost steps that the plaintiff disputes:

(a)A party must show exceptional reasons before the Court will refuse to award costs to the successful party, or make a reduction in costs.10

(b)I do not agree with the plaintiff that because evidence was by way of affidavits and not briefs of evidence the hearing had the “hallmarks of an interlocutory hearing.” The notes of evidence, for example, run to

10     High Court Rules, r 14.7. See also Weaver v Auckland Council [2017] NZCA 330 at [20], citing

Shirley v Wairarapa District Health Board [2006] NZSC 63, [2006] 3 NZLR 523 at [19].

205 pages.

Preparation of written submissions (step 24)

[21]     I accept the defendants’ proposition that an uplift of 25 per cent is an appropriate way to recognise the time they spent in preparing joint memoranda and joint submissions. The uplift recognises the complexity and novelty of some of the issues in relation to “late knowledge” but also, importantly, recognises that each defendant’s individual position had to be addressed. For example, the opening submissions included schedules of the causes of action against each defendant relied on in firstly the fourth, then the fifth, then the sixth amended statement of claim. In respect of each defendant, the pleaded publications were itemised by reference to when they were first published, when they remained online and the claimed late knowledge dates. That analysis was completed in respect of each defendant. From my perspective the presentation of a joint submission and analysis was of real assistance to the Court. It was certainly more streamlined than having to consider separate documents and analyses and I have no doubt that, ultimately, it was more efficient and less costly to prepare.

Steps 30–32

[22]     In relation to preparation of affidavits (step 30) the plaintiff submits costs should be reduced to recognise that some of the affidavit evidence related to the privacy claim. I have allowed a reduction of five per cent to recognise that a small proportion of the affidavit evidence related to the privacy claims.

[23]     I agree with the plaintiff’s approach to calculation of steps 30 to 32. The  High Court Amendment Rules 2019 came into force on 1 August 2019 replacing the daily recovery rates. The appropriate daily recovery rate for category 2 proceedings was increased to $2,390. The steps taken prior to August 2019 should be calculated in accordance with the daily recovery rate applicable at that time. The defendants do not suggest otherwise.

[24]     The plaintiff submits the time allowance for preparation for the hearing should be discounted to reflect the involvement of Sky Network Television Ltd (Sky). Sky’s

involvement in the four-day hearing was distinct from the first to fourth defendants. The plaintiff sued Sky in relation to only one media item. Sky cross-examined no witnesses. Sky’s approach to the hearing, its submissions and its legal analysis were quite different from the first to fourth defendants’.

[25]     The plaintiff disputes the defendants’ claim for the preparation of the common bundle (step 31) on the basis it was prepared by Sky. Sky compiled and hyperlinked the bundle after the defendants’ counsel had identified what was to be included. The costs of the compilation and hyperlinking were then passed onto each of the defendants.

Appearances (steps 34–35)

[26]     The four defendants separately instructed three counsel. The four defendants would ordinarily have been entitled to costs for each counsel. However, the defendants have claimed for two primary counsel and, in relation to a third counsel who assisted, for one second counsel. While that is the approach the defendants explained in their memorandum their calculation does not reflect that approach. I consider the costs for counsel should be calculated as follows:

Step	Description	Allocated days
34	Appearance for first primary counsel, R K P Stewart (shared by first, second and fourth defendants)	3	$7,170
34	Appearance for second primary counsel, D M Salmon (third defendant)	3	$7,170
35	Appearance for second counsel, T F Cleary) (shared by first, second and fourth defendants)	1.5	$3,585

Disbursements

Disbursements sought by the defendants:

[27]The defendants seek the following disbursements:

Filing fees
Statement of defence (RNZ)	$110
Statement of defence (Stuff)	$110
Statement of defence (TVNZ)	$110
Statement of defence (MediaWorks)	$110
Amended statement of defence to fourth statement of claim (RNZ)	$110
Amended statement of defence to fourth statement of claim (Stuff)	$110
Amended statement of defence to fourth statement of claim (TVNZ)	$110
Amended statement of defence to fourth statement of claim (MediaWorks)	$110
Amended statement of defence to fifth statement of claim (MediaWorks)	$110
Interlocutory application for strikeout	$500
Travel and accommodation
Counsel for RNZ and Stuff	$1,616.12
Counsel for TVNZ	$916
Counsel for MediaWorks	$1,866.22
Other
Expert witness fees and expenses – Dr Ellis	$6,352.92
Expert witness fees and expenses – Naveen Goel	$12,546.50
Costs for preparing the common bundle 4/5 share between first to fourth defendants	$1,951.64
Couriers for MediaWorks	$8.51
TOTAL	$26,747.93

[28]     The plaintiff disputes a number of these disbursements. First, the plaintiff submits the defendants should not be entitled to disbursements for travel and accommodation as the proceeding was brought in Wellington and it was not necessary to obtain out of town counsel. The defendants say in response that the defendants were entitled to select counsel of their choosing.

[29]     It has been said that where there is an adequate choice of suitable counsel in the High Court centre where the hearing occurs it may be hard to argue the “necessity’ of instructing out of town counsel and claiming for their travel and accommodation expenses.11

[30]     But as Fisher J said in Russell v Taxation Review Authority that factor is only the starting point. Mr McKnight and Mr Romanos are recognised experts in the field. So too are the primary counsel for the defendants. They, however, happen to be Auckland counsel. As Fisher J acknowledged the cost of transporting counsel with expertise from another region may well be outweighed by the efficiencies gained

11 Russell v Taxation Review Authority (2000) 14 PRNZ 515 (HC) at [24]–[25], applied in Rongotai Investments Ltd v Wellington City Council [2020] NZHC 820; and Strathboss Kiwifruit Ltd v Attorney-General [2019] NZHC 62.

during the preparatory stage. Counsel have already made the point that where it would have been appropriate for each defendant to be separately represented instead, one primary and one secondary counsel represented three defendants and Mr Salmon alone represented one defendant. To be recoverable, however, a disbursement must be reasonable and not disproportionate in the circumstances of the proceeding. The disbursement for travel and accommodation claimed by counsel for the third defendant is $916. That compares rather starkly with the disbursement of $1,866 claimed by counsel for the fourth defendant. While I intend to allow the disbursements for out of town counsel I propose to reduce the amounts claimed so that $1,000 is awarded in relation to the travel and accommodation expenses for each of the two counsel     (Mr Stewart and Mr Cleary) for the first, second and fourth defendants.

[31]     In relation to the disbursement for Dr Ellis I do not accept the plaintiff’s contention that the disbursements for his attendances should “lie where they fall”. The only element of Dr Ellis’ evidence touching upon privacy was his concluding paragraphs in which he commented (from the perspective of his tenure as editor and editor-in-chief of the New Zealand Herald) on the fact that in New Zealand news media would be unlikely to name a suspect in the midst of a police investigation as had happened in relation to Sir Cliff Richard who sued for breach of privacy by the BBC in reporting a search of his home during the investigation into him. There is no basis for reducing the disbursement for Dr Ellis’ witness fees and expenses on that ground.

[32]     In relation to the defendants’ second expert witness, Mr Naveen Goel, $12,546 appears on its face to be disproportionate compared to the costs claimed for Dr Ellis. That said, aspects of Mr Goel’s evidence were highly technical in outlining the criminal justice system in India and commenting on the assertions made by the plaintiff in relation to her direct selling, network marketing and multi-level marketing scheme being legal in India. Mr Goel swore three affidavits, the second expanding on his earlier evidence about the Indian code of criminal procedure, the openness of the criminal justice process and the ability of judges to restrict reporting on criminal proceedings. Mr Goel is based in India where he has practised for 27 years and has advised citizens of countries represented by High Commissions in India on criminal

matters arising in India. Although Mr Goel is based in India he only needed to travel from Auckland because he was in Auckland at the time of the hearing.

[33]     Mr Goel’s evidence would have required research. That may have accounted for what otherwise appears to be a rather large disbursement. I observe also that in Mr Goel’s third affidavit, in which he comments on matters raised by the plaintiff’s expert witness, Mr Singh, that approximately six paragraphs were directed to the breach of privacy causes of action. A party is entitled to recover the actual fees and expenses of its expert witnesses including for the time spent critiquing other parties’ experts.12 While the disbursement seems large no basis has been put to me for disentitling the defendants to recovery of their expert witness expense.

Disbursements sought by the plaintiff

[34]     The plaintiff submits she is entitled to an award of 75 per cent of Mr Singh’s fees amounting to $8,875. She submits she should be awarded a portion of her disbursements to reflect her overall success in respect of the privacy issues. I was initially inclined to let costs lie where they fall in relation to the privacy issues but on reflection Ms Driver succeeded in relation to the claim for invasion of privacy which I described in the judgment as the most complicated category, the one given the most attention in counsels’ submissions and the one involving several complex issues each of which was addressed in detail in the judgment. While Mr Singh’s evidence attracted only a footnote in the judgment witnesses’ expenses and fees are recoverable notwithstanding that the court found it unnecessary to deal with the matters on which their evidence was called.

[35]     In those circumstances I am satisfied that the plaintiff is entitled to an award of 75 per cent of Mr Singh’s fees.

Conclusion

[36]     The conclusions I have reached as to entitlements to costs and disbursements are reflected in the following table. The plaintiff must pay costs to the first, second,

12     Andrew Beck McGechan on Procedure (online looseleaf edition) at HR14.12.01(4)(d).

third and fourth defendants in the sum of $162,109 and disbursements in the sum of

$16,475. The plaintiff is entitled to the 75% she claims of the $8,875 expert witness fees and expenses in relation to Mr Singh.

SCALE COSTS
Step		Description	Days	Amount	Explanation
2		Commencement of defence by first defendant (RNZ)	2	$4,780
2		Commencement of defence by second defendant (Stuff)	2	$4,780
2		Commencement of defence by third defendant (TVNZ)	2	$4,780
2		Commencement of defence by fourth defendant (Mediaworks)	2	$4,780
9		Amended pleading by RNZ to fourth amended statement of claim	0.6	$1,434
9		Amended pleading by Stuff to fourth amended statement of claim	0.6	$1,434
9		Amended pleading by TVNZ to fourth amended statement of claim	0.6	$1,434
9		Amended pleading by Mediaworks to fourth amended statement of claim	0.6	$1,434
9		Amended pleading by RNZ to fifth amended statement of claim	0.6	$1,434
10		Preparation for first case management conference (RNZ)	0.4	$956
10		Preparation for first case management conference (Stuff)	0.4	$956
10		Preparation for first case management conference (TVNZ)	0.4	$956
10		Preparation for first case management conference (Mediaworks)	0.4	$956
11		Joint memorandum of counsel dated 30 April 2018	0.5	$1,493.75 (1,195 + 298.75)	Uplift of 25 per cent reflects collaboration between all four defendants.
11		Memoranda of counsel for Mediaworks dated 18 June 2018	0.4	$956
11		Joint memorandum of counsel dated 18 October 2018	0.5	$1,493.75 (1,195 + 298.75)	Uplift of 25 per cent reflects collaboration between all four defendants.
11		Joint memorandum of counsel dated 20 December 2018	0.5	$1,493.75 (1,195 + 298.75)
11		Joint memorandum of counsel dated 12 March 2019	0.5	$1,493.75 (1,195 + 298.75)

11	Joint memorandum of counsel dated 21 March 2019	0.5	$1,493.75 (1,195 + 298.75)
11	Joint memorandum of counsel dated 21 June 2019	0.5	$1,493.75 (1,195 + 298.75)
11	Joint memorandum of counsel dated 2 December 2019	0.5	$1,493.75 (1,195 + 298.75)
13	Appearance at teleconference dated 19 June 2018 (RNZ)	0.3	$717
13	Appearance at case management conference 19 June 2018	0.3	$717	Divided between Stuff, TVNZ and Mediaworks.
13	Appearance at case management conference 24 October 2018 (RNZ)	0.3	$717
13	Appearance at case management conference 24 October 2018 (Stuff)	0.3	$717
13	Appearance at case management conference 24 October 2018 (TVNZ)	0.3	$717
13	Appearance at case management conference 24 October 2018 (Mediaworks)	0.3	$717
13	Appearance at case management conference 19 June 2018	0.3	$717	To be divided between the defendants.
13	Appearance at teleconference dated 11 February 2019	0.3	$717	Divided between RNZ and Stuff
20	List of documents on discovery (RNZ)	0.625	$1,493.75	Reduced by 75 per cent to reflect some documents related to privacy claims.
20	List of documents on discovery (Stuff)	0.625	$1,493.75
20	List of documents on discovery (TVNZ)	0.625	$1,493.75
20	List of documents on discovery (Mediaworks)	0.625	$1,493.75
21	Inspection of documents (RNZ)	1.5	$3,585
21	Inspection of documents (Stuff)	1.5	$3,585
21	Inspection of documents (TVNZ)	1.5	$3,585
21	Inspection of documents (Mediaworks)	1.5	$3,585
22	Filing interlocutory application	$1,434	$1,434
24	Preparation of written submissions	1.5	$4,481.25 (3585 + 896.25)	Uplift of 25 per cent reflects collaboration between all four defendants.
30	Preparation of affidavits, list of issues or authorities, agreeing common bundle (RNZ)	4	$8,474
30	Preparation of affidavits, list of issues or authorities, agreeing common bundle (Stuff)	4	$8,474

3013	Preparation of affidavits, list of issues or authorities, agreeing common bundle (TVNZ)	4	$8,474
30	Preparation of affidavits, list of issues or authorities, agreeing common bundle (Mediaworks)	4	$8,474
31	Additional allowance for preparing common bundle	0.5	$1,115
32	Preparation for hearing (RNZ)	4	$8,920
32	Preparation for hearing (Stuff)	4	$8,920
32	Preparation for hearing (TVNZ)	4	$8,920
32	Preparation for hearing (Mediaworks)	4	$8,920
34	Appearance for primary counsel	3	$7,170	Divided between RNZ, Stuff and Mediaworks
34	Appearance for principal counsel (TVNZ)	3	$7,170
35	Second counsel	1.5	$3,585	Divided between RNZ, Stuff and Mediaworks
TOTAL:				$162,109

DISBURSEMENTS
Filing fees
Statement of defence (RNZ)	$110
Statement of defence (Stuff)	$110
Statement of defence (TVNZ)	$110
Statement of defence (MediaWorks)	$110
Amended statement of defence to fourth statement of claim (RNZ)	$110
Amended statement of defence to fourth statement of claim (Stuff)	$110
Amended statement of defence to fourth statement of claim (TVNZ)	$110
Amended statement of defence to fourth statement of claim (MediaWorks)	$110
Amended statement of defence to fifth statement of claim (MediaWorks)	$110
Interlocutory application for strikeout	$500
Travel and accommodation
Counsel for RNZ and Stuff	$1,000
Counsel for TVNZ	$1,000
Counsel for MediaWorks	$1,000
Other
Expert witness fees and expenses – Dr Ellis	$6,352.92
Expert witness fees and expenses – Naveen Goel	$12,546.50
Costs for preparing the common bundle	$1,951.64
Couriers for MediaWorks	$8.51
TOTAL	$25,350

Disbursements ordered to the plaintiff
Expert witness fees and expenses: Mr Singh (75% of $8,875)	$6,656.25

13     Steps 30 to 32 are calculated in accordance with the recovery rate applying prior to the coming into force of the High Court Amendment Rules 2019: see [23] above.

Karen Clark J

Solicitors:

Langford Law, Wellington for Plaintiff

Oakley Moran, Wellington for First Defendant Izard Weston, Wellington for Second Defendant LeeSalmonLong, Auckland for Third Defendant

Chapman Tripp, Wellington for Fourth Defendant Buddle Findlay, Auckland for Fifth Defendant