McLean v Marshall

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CIV-2013-412-000188 [2016] NZHC 1770

BETWEEN
DOUGLAS WAYNE FRASER MCLEAN

First Plaintiff

AND

ROBERT RITCHIE MARSHALL Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

L A Andersen for the Plaintiff
Defendant self-represented

Judgment:

1 August 2016

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1] On 14 June 2016, I gave judgment for the plaintiff in these proceedings on an issue as to quantum.1 At para [46] of that judgment I expressed a tentative view that costs should be awarded just for the proceedings after the claim had been remitted back to the High Court from the Court of Appeal. The plaintiff has accepted that costs should be awarded on that basis.

[2] In absence of agreement, I directed that counsel for the plaintiff was to file a memorandum within 21 days. The defendant was to file his response within 14 days. He has not filed any such response.

[3] On a 2B basis, as is appropriate, the plaintiff would be entitled to costs in accordance with the schedule of $21,854. The plaintiff is not however entitled to costs for more than those that have actually been incurred. On that basis, the
plaintiff limits his claim to $14,446 and disbursements totalling $1,702.44.

1 McLean v Marshall [2016] NZHC 1276.

MCLEAN v MARSHALL [2016] NZHC 1770 [1 August 2016]

[4] I am satisfied that the plaintiff is entitled to costs on that basis. I accordingly give judgment for the plaintiff for costs in the sum of $14,446 together with disbursements of $1,702.44.

Solicitors:
Bramwell Grossman, Solicitors, Hastings
L A Andersen, Barrister, Dunedin
Copy to Defendant.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Douglas Wayne Fraser McLean brought an action against Robert Ritchie Marshall in the High Court of New Zealand at Dunedin. The case revolves around a dispute concerning costs incurred after the plaintiff’s claim was remitted back to the High Court from the Court of Appeal. The plaintiff was successful in his quantum claim and sought an award of costs limited to those incurred after the case was remitted. The defendant, Robert Marshall, did not contest the plaintiff’s claim for costs, thereby leading to the necessity of determining the appropriate amount of costs to be awarded.

The central legal issue was the quantum of costs that the plaintiff, Douglas McLean, was entitled to recover from the defendant, Robert Marshall. Given the absence of a contested response from the defendant, the court needed to determine the reasonable amount of costs that should be awarded to the plaintiff based on the schedule provided and the actual costs incurred. The plaintiff limited his claim to $14,446 in costs and $1,702.44 in disbursements.

The court, after considering the plaintiff’s memorandum and the absence of any opposition from the defendant, was satisfied that the plaintiff was entitled to the claimed costs. It was determined that the plaintiff should be awarded $14,446 in costs along with disbursements of $1,702.44. This decision was based on the principle that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the costs that were actually incurred and that the amount claimed falls within the reasonable limits set by the court.

The court ordered that Robert Marshall pay Douglas McLean $14,446 in costs and $1,702.44 in disbursements, bringing the total amount to be paid by the defendant to $16,148.44. The defendant was also directed to provide a copy of the judgment to himself.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	L A Andersen for the Plaintiff Defendant self-represented
Judgment:	1 August 2016