Halse v Rangiura Trust Board
[2023] NZHC 3051
•31 October 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2022-419-000070
[2023] NZHC 3051
BETWEEN ALLAN GEOFFREY HALSE
Plaintiff
AND
RANGIURA TRUST BOARD
First Defendant
AND
NORRIS WARD MCKINNON LTD
Second Defendant
AND
SAMUEL WALLACE HOOD
Third Defendant
AND
ERIN REBEKAH ANDERSON
Fourth Defendant
Hearing: (On the papers) Counsel:
Plaintiff in Person
Michael Robertson and Sophie Pasley for the First Defendant Virginia Wethey and Rachel Anderson for the Second to Fourth Defendants
Judgment:
31 October 2023
JUDGMENT OF MOORE J
[Costs]
This judgment was delivered by me on 31 October 2023 at 3:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Registrar/ Deputy Registrar Date:
HALSE v RANGIURA TRUST BOARD & ORS [2023] NZHC 3051 [31 October 2023]
Introduction
[1] The applicant, Mr Halse, brought causes of action in deceit, fraud, conspiracy to defraud, and knowing assistance against each of the four defendants, being Rangiura Trust Board (“Rangiura”), Norris Ward McKinnon Ltd (“NWM”), Mr Samuel Hood and Ms Erin Anderson.
[2] On 19 June 2023, I granted Rangiura’s application for strike out of the proceedings in their entirety under r 15.1 of the High Court Rules 2016, and the second to fourth defendants’ application for an extended order under s 166(4) of the Senior Courts Act 2016.1 The order restrains Mr Halse from commencing or continuing civil proceedings on this matter or any related matter in any court or tribunal.
[3] The defendants, as the successful parties, are entitled to costs. This judgment deals with that matter on the papers.
Respective positions
[4] The defendants have filed a joint memorandum seeking costs on a 2B basis for all steps up until and including the interlocutory application hearing on 19 April 2023. The first defendant seeks costs and disbursements totalling $21,688.50, and the second, third and fourth defendants jointly seek $21,688.50 on the basis that they shared legal representation.
[5] The defendants proceed on the basis that each of the first defendant, and the second to fourth defendants jointly, are entitled to costs in respect of joint memoranda of counsel filed on behalf of all defendants, and in respect of the preparation of bundles for the hearing. They submit this is appropriate because the joint memorandum required consideration and input from all parties and it was necessary to prepare multiple bundles — including bundles of authorities for each of the first defendant and second to fourth defendants’ respective applications, a joint bundle of pleadings and a joint bundle of related decisions.
1 Halse v Rangiura Trust Board [2023] NZHC 1519.
[6] The defendants also seek costs for the appearance of second counsel on the basis that the issues at hand were more complex than usual for an interlocutory application.
[7] Mr Halse requests further evidence from each of the defendants by way of invoices and bank statements showing the costs incurred, citing the general principle that an award of costs should not exceed the costs incurred.2 He also requests an extension of time to file a notice of opposition. He says that he should be in a position to respond within seven days of receiving the information requested.
[8] The defendants have not responded to Mr Halse’s memorandum nor have they provided any further evidence.
Discussion
[9] I am satisfied that the defendants are entitled to the costs and disbursements as claimed, and that no further evidence of the kind requested is needed.
[10] The costs and disbursements claimed are particularised in Appendix A to the defendants’ joint memorandum. The table prepared by the defendants represents an entirely orthodox application of the High Court Rules 2016 (“the Rules”). The amounts claimed reflect the steps, time allocations and daily recovery rate for category 2, band B proceedings as set out in Schedules 2 and 3 of the Rules. The costs claimed are usual and reasonable. There is no need for invoices or bank statements.
[11] In addition, I am satisfied that each of the first and second to fourth defendants is entitled to claim for the filing of the joint memorandum and bundles. This was a collaborative and not insignificant effort, involving multiple applications and a large volume of relevant material. For these reasons, I also accept that costs are justified for the appearance of second counsel.
[12] As for disbursements, usually these would require some form of verification, but in this case the disbursements claimed relate solely to filing and hearing fees.
2 High Court Rules 2016, r 14.2(f).
These fees are set out in the High Court Fees Regulations 2013 and match the amounts claimed. There is no need for receipts.
Result
[13]I order that the plaintiff is to pay:
(a)the first defendant $21,688.50 in costs and disbursements; and
(b)the second to fourth defendants, jointly, $21,688.50 in costs and disbursements.
Moore J
Barristers/Solicitors:
Mr Robertson, Auckland Ms Pasley, Auckland Ms Wethey, Auckland Ms Anderson, Auckland
Copy to:
The Plaintiff