Grey District Council v Blain

The High Court of New Zealand considered the case of Grey District Council v Blain, which involved a dispute over costs following a successful appeal by the defendants against the plaintiff's opposition to third-party applications to strike out. The defendants argued for separate awards of costs, while the third party contended for a single award of costs to all defendants jointly. The court needed to determine whether the defendants were entitled to separate awards of costs or if a single joint award would be more appropriate.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendants were entitled to separate awards of costs for their oppositions to the third-party applications or if they should be awarded jointly due to the overlap and community of interest in their litigation positions. The court considered High Court Rule 14.15, which mandates that the court should not allow more than one set of costs unless there is good reason to do so. The court also took into account factors such as the extent to which the defendants' interests were materially identical and the extent to which one defendant could have relied on the evidence or submissions of another.

The court found that while the defendants were entitled to separate awards of costs for filing notices of opposition and appearing at conferences, given their separate representation at that stage, they had not established good reason to depart from the mandate in Rule 14.15 for the preparation and delivery of submissions. The court noted the cooperation between the defendants' counsel, which led to the division of tasks but did not justify separate representation during the hearing. The court concluded that the defendants could have agreed for one counsel to present all submissions on their behalf, which would have resulted in a significant cost saving and been consistent with the High Court Rules. Therefore, the court allowed one set of costs for the preparation and delivery of submissions, awarding item 24 on a 2C basis and item 26 on a 2B basis.

The court further ruled that disbursements were allowed in the sum of $3,022.28. This decision highlights the importance of considering the overlap in litigation positions and the potential for cost savings when determining whether to award separate or joint costs to multiple defendants.