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

[2024] NZHC 2469

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.