Green v Racing Integrity Unit Limited

[2012] NZHC 3579

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-6446 [2012] NZHC 3579

BETWEEN  JOHN PATRICK GREEN AND BRIAN HUGHES

First Plaintiffs

ANDBARRY RATTRAY AS TRUSTEE OF THE RATTRAY FAMILY TRUST, WAYNE MCLAUGHLIN AND THE ESTATE OF MRS W MCLAUGHLIN Second Plaintiffs

ANDRACING INTEGRITY UNIT LIMITED First Defendant

ANDHARNESS RACING NEW ZEALAND INC

Second Defendant

ANDJUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY FOR RACING

Third Defendant

Hearing:         On the papers

Counsel:         M Fisher for plaintiffs

C J Lange for first and second defendants

Judgment:      20 December 2012

JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 December 2012 at 3 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

JOHN PATRICK GREEN AND BRIAN HUGHES V RACING INTEGRITY UNIT LIMITED HC AK CIV-

2012-404-6446 [20 December 2012]

[1]      I have now received the memoranda dealing with the issue of costs in relation to the application for interim relief.

[2]      The material placed before the Court makes it clear that the plaintiffs wrote to the solicitors for the first and second defendants on 31 October 2012 proposing that the proceedings  before  the third defendant  be  adjourned  until  such  time as  the judicial review proceeding had been heard.

[3]      On  20  November  2012  the  solicitors  acting  for  the  first  and  second defendants  responded  to  this  suggestion  by  stating  that  the  first  and  second defendants did not agree with the proposal.  In the meantime, the third defendant had scheduled a conference for 9 am on Thursday 22 November 2012.

[4]      Counsel for the first and second defendants contends that it was open to the plaintiffs to attend that conference in order to  apply for an adjournment of the proceeding before the third defendant pending determination of the application for judicial review.   Instead, counsel for the plaintiffs declined to participate in the conference held on 22 November.   Counsel for the first and second defendants advised the third defendant at that conference that the first and second defendants would oppose the application for a stay that the plaintiffs had filed in the High Court.

[5]      Ultimately, the plaintiffs have been successful in their application for interim relief because the defendants agreed that the proceeding before the third defendant should not proceed further until the application for judicial review, now scheduled for 18 and 19 March 2013, had been heard.   On that basis I consider that the plaintiffs are entitled to an award of costs in their favour.  The plaintiffs are entitled to a single award of costs on a Category 2B basis against the first and second

defendants together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

Lang J

Solicitors:

Claymore Partners Ltd, Auckland

Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch

Counsel:
M J Fisher, Auckland

C A McVeigh QC, Christchurch