Duggan v Auckland Council

[2017] NZHC 2138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-003106 [2017] NZHC 2138

BETWEEN

MICHAEL JOHN DUGGAN AND JULIE

ROGERS Plaintiffs

AND

AUCKLAND COUNCIL First Defendant

IAN AND MICHELLE COSTELLO Second Defendants

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Counsel:	R Enright for Plaintiffs N Whittington and J Wilson for First Defendant B Tree and A Theelan for Second Defendant
Judgment:	4 September 2017

COSTS JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 September 2017 at 4.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the

High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:           Crawford Law, Wellington

Meredith Connell, Auckland

Minter Ellison Rudd Watts, Auckland

Copy to:            R Enright, Auckland

DUGGAN & ANOR v AUCKLAND COUNCIL & ANOR [2017] NZHC 2138 [4 September 2017]

[1]      In the substantive judgment delivered on 5 July 2017 the Court awarded costs in favour of the defendants on a 2B basis.   The Auckland Council seeks costs calculated on a 2B basis in the sum of $24,417.00 (including disbursements).  The second defendants, the Costellos, seek costs on a 2B basis of $25,791.00 (which includes $1,484.00 for providing documents in response to the plaintiffs’ request relating to the construction contract and all written communications between the second defendants and their builder) together with $110.00 for disbursements.  The second defendants also seek an uplift on scale costs of 50 per cent.

[2]      The plaintiffs now accept the quantum claimed by the second defendants under 2B of $25,791.00 plus $110.00 for disbursements.

[3]      The plaintiffs however submit that there should be no uplift in costs as sought by the second defendants and further that there should be a reduction in costs as the second defendants sought to introduce extraneous and unnecessary evidence into the proceeding.

[4]      While the plaintiffs failed in their applications for judicial review increased costs are not justified.  It cannot be said the proceeding was entirely without merit and should never have been brought.  I accept the general criticism of the plaintiffs’ pleadings in that there were numerous particulars under each cause of action but the argument was more focused.  I also accept that both parties were guilty of adducing evidence which was not directly related to the issues in the proceeding.  On balance this is not a case for increased costs.

Result/orders

[5]      The plaintiffs are to pay the first defendant Auckland Council costs in the sum of $24,417.00 (including disbursements).

[6]      The  plaintiffs  are  to  pay  the  second  defendants  costs  in  the  sum  of

$25,901.00 (including disbursements).

Venning J