LENA NEDELCHEVA DUNCAN AND THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED THE DISTRICT COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2024-404-0017

[2024] NZHC 2469

UNDER The Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

BETWEEN

LENA NEDELCHEVA DUNCAN

Applicant

AND

THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED

First Respondent

THE DISTRICT COURT

Second Respondent

On the papers

Counsel:

The applicant in person

N H Brown for the first respondent

Judgment:

30 August 2024

COSTS JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 August 2024 at 10.00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

DUNCAN v THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED [2024] NZHC 2469 [30 August 2024]

[1] In a judgment dated 5 July 2024, I struck out all those parts of Ms Duncan’s amended statement of claim brought against the first respondent, the SPCA.1 I also ordered Ms Duncan to pay the SPCA its costs and disbursements. Subsequently, the parties were unable to agree quantum.

[2] The SPCA filed a costs memorandum dated 31 July 2024. It sought costs of $12,786.50 and disbursements of $664.64.

[3] Ms Duncan responded with a memorandum dated 9 August 2024. Ms Duncan raised several matters that have no relevance to the quantification of costs: that she had made a without prejudice offer to the SPCA; that the SPCA had not responded; and that she was suffering financial hardship.

[4] Ms Duncan also said that she strongly objected “to the proposed costs order and/or quantum”. The costs order has already been made. If Ms Duncan disagrees with the costs order, she can appeal it. In fact, she has appealed. As to quantum, the only substantive point raised by Ms Duncan was that the SPCA had claimed disbursements for travel and accommodation for the hearing, when counsel should have requested a VMR appearance. But the hearing was an important one at which counsel were entitled to appear in person.

[5] The SPCA has calculated costs on a 2B basis. All the cost items claimed are appropriate. The disbursements were necessary and are reasonable in amount. I therefore order Ms Duncan to pay to the SPCA costs of $12,786.50 and disbursements of $664.64.

Campbell J

1 Duncan v Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals [2024] NZHC 1818.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand considered a case between Lena Nedelcheva Duncan and the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Incorporated, with the District Court also involved. The dispute arose from a previous judgment on 5 July 2024, where the court struck out parts of Ms Duncan’s amended statement of claim against the SPCA. The court ordered Ms Duncan to pay the SPCA its costs and disbursements, but the parties could not agree on the quantum of these costs. The SPCA filed a costs memorandum seeking $12,786.50 in costs and $664.64 in disbursements. Ms Duncan responded with a memorandum objecting to the proposed costs and raising irrelevant matters. The court found that the SPCA's costs were calculated on a 2B basis and all claimed costs were appropriate. The disbursements claimed were also necessary and reasonable.

The legal issues before the court were primarily about the appropriate quantum of costs to be awarded to the SPCA and the relevance of Ms Duncan’s objections and submissions. The court had to determine whether the costs claimed by the SPCA were reasonable and necessary, and whether Ms Duncan’s objections had any bearing on the quantum of costs. The court also had to consider Ms Duncan’s argument about the necessity of travel and accommodation expenses for the hearing. Ultimately, the court found that the SPCA’s claimed costs were appropriate, and the disbursements were reasonable. Ms Duncan’s objections were deemed irrelevant to the quantification of the costs.

The court concluded that the SPCA was entitled to the costs and disbursements claimed, totaling $12,786.50 and $664.64 respectively. The court rejected Ms Duncan’s objections as irrelevant and found no merit in her argument regarding the necessity of travel and accommodation expenses. The court emphasised that if Ms Duncan disagreed with the costs order, she could appeal it, which she had already done. The court ordered Ms Duncan to pay the SPCA the full amount of the claimed costs and disbursements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established