Gillette v Green

[2018] NZHC 645

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CIV-2017-442-42

[2018] NZHC 645

BETWEEN

NATHAN DANIEL GILLETTE

Plaintiff

AND

THOMAS GREEN

First Defendant

ROOF POWER INSTALLATIONS LIMITED

(formerly known as SUN POWER LIMITED)

Second Defendant

Counsel:

No submissions by or for plaintiff

A G Stallard for first and second defendants

Judgment:

11 April 2018

COSTS JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE JOHNSTON

[On the papers]

[1]    The history of this litigation is comprehensively recorded in the judgments of Justice Grice dated 26 February 2018 (reasons delivered 14 March 2018)  and  Justice Churchman dated 14 March 2018. I will not reiterate this here. But in summary, the plaintiff has two judgments against the first respondent totalling a little under $7,800.00. He has sought to enforce these by various processes. In her judgment of 26 February 2018 Justice Grice declined the plaintiff’s application for freezing orders. In his judgment of 14 March 2018, on the application of the first defendant, Justice Churchman discharged a charging order over a property jointly owned by the first defendant and another.

[2]    The first defendant now seeks costs in relation these interlocutory matters, and it is this costs application which is before me for determination.

GILLETTE v GREEN [2018] NZHC 645 [11 April 2018]

[3]At the conclusion of his judgment of 14 March 2018 Justice Churchman said:

[16]In relation to the fixing of costs in this matter I direct the applicant [that is, the defendants] to file a memorandum of no more than 5 pages in length in support of any costs application. Such memorandum to be filed within 5 working days of the date of this order.

[17]I direct Mr Gillette to file a memorandum in reply (again no more than 5 pages in length) within 5 working days of receipt by him of the applicant’s memorandum.

[18]Costs will then be determined on the papers.

[4]    In accordance with those directions Mr Stallard filed and (I am assuming) served a memorandum dated 20 March 2018. I observe that despite the terms of Justice Churchman’s directions, that memorandum extended to 9 pages (even without the various attachments). In the normal course of things I would decline to read any more than 5 pages. However, I accept that in the particular circumstances of this case it was probably necessary for Mr Stallard to go into a more lengthy description of the background than might normally be the case, and I have therefore had regard to his entire memorandum.

[5]Essentially, the first defendant seeks costs calculated on a 2B basis of

$5,686.50, together with disbursements of $250.

[6]The plaintiff has not filed and served a memorandum in reply.

[7]    In those circumstances, I can only infer that he takes no issue with the first defendant’s application.

[8]    The first defendant was largely successful in this interlocutory litigation, and I can see no reason why costs should not follow the event in the usual way.

[9]Mr Stallard’s calculation of costs on a 2B basis appears to me to be in order.

[10]   Accordingly, I make an award of costs and disbursements in favour of the first defendant against the plaintiff in the sum of $5,936.50 (that sum including both costs

and disbursements).

Associate Judge Johnston

Solicitors:

Zindels, Nelson for the defendants