Monnery v Parsons - [2022] NZHC 167

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2018-485-482

[2022] NZHC 167

BETWEEN
PAUL MARK MONNERY

First Plaintiff

PAUL MARK MONNERY and JULIE ANN MONNERY

Second Plaintiffs

AND

ANDREW GRAHAM PARSONS

First Defendant

JOHN MURRAY CREIGHTON
Second Defendant

BRUCE GORDON COPELAND
Third Defendant

KURT BREDENBECH

Fourth Defendant

MURRAY CHARLES PARSONS
Fifth Defendant

PUSH DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
Sixth Defendant

SANDFIELD ASSOCIATES LIMITED
Seventh Defendant

SANDFIELD VENTURES LIMITED
Eighth Defendant

PKB INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Ninth Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

C R Carruthers QC and R L Fletcher for plaintiffs

P R W Chisnall and J D Haig for first and sixth defendants No appearance by or for second defendant

J P Nolen for second defendant

MONNERY v PARSONS [2022] NZHC 167 [11 February 2022]

D J Chisholm QC and J D Ryan for third, seventh and eighth

defendants
G Bogiatto for fourth, fifth and ninth defendants

Judgment:

11 February 2022

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE JOHNSTON

[Costs]

[1] This is a costs judgment that follows an unsuccessful application by the plaintiffs for additional discovery against certain defendants. In my judgment 26 October 2021 I reserved costs.1 I expected that counsel would be able to resolve them. That has not happened. I now have memoranda from the first and sixth; the second; the third, seventh and eighth; and the fourth, fifth and ninth defendants, all seeking costs awards. For the plaintiffs, Mr Carruthers has replied by memorandum. Counsel for the first and sixth, second and fourth, fifth and ninth defendants have replied to the reply.

[2] Much is agreed. All parties appear to accept that the plaintiffs must be regarded as having been the unsuccessful parties in the interlocutory proceeding. Everyone appears to accept that the plaintiffs are prima facie liable for costs in relation to the same. It would appear to be agreed that if there is to be a costs award costs should be calculated on a 2B basis. The calculations carried out by the various defendant groups seeking costs awards are not challenged.

[3] What Mr Carruthers submits is that in the circumstances the costs are unreasonably high, though of course his argument is more nuanced than that.

[4] As he says, on its face, it is surprising that an interlocutory hearing which occupied less than a day has resulted in applications for costs orders of close to
$40,000. However, to a very large extent, that simply reflects the fact that there are a number of defendant groups involved.

1 Monnery v Parsons [2021] NZHC 2854.

[5] Mr Carruthers goes on to submit that “the costs claimed simply do not reflect the issues which each of the defendants had to deal with”.

[6] He reminds the Court of the observation made in the judgment that by the time the matter was heard the only applications that remained on foot were those against the first and sixth; second; and fifth defendants. Whilst that is quite correct, it does not appear to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Monnery v Parsons

Details

AGLC: Monnery v Parsons [2022] NZHC 167
Case: [2022] NZHC 167
Decision Date: 11 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Monnery v Parsons involved multiple plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs, Paul Mark Monnery and Julie Ann Monnery, sought additional discovery against several defendants, including Andrew Graham Parsons, John Murray Creighton, Bruce Gordon Copeland, Kurt Bredenbech, Murray Charles Parsons, Push Developments Limited, Sandfield Associates Limited, Sandfield Ventures Limited, and PKB Investments Limited. Following an unsuccessful application for additional discovery, the court considered the issue of costs.

The primary legal issue before the court was the reasonableness of the costs claimed by the defendants in the interlocutory proceeding. The plaintiffs argued that the costs were unreasonably high, particularly given that the hearing was brief. The defendants, on the other hand, sought full costs based on their involvement in the hearing and the preparation required.

The court considered the arguments presented by both sides. The plaintiffs' counsel argued that the costs were disproportionately high for a hearing that lasted less than a day and that some aspects of the applications had fallen away just before the hearing. However, the court found that while the hearing was brief, it still occupied three quarters of a day, necessitating the presence of counsel for all parties. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had elected to sue all defendants and thus had the right to be present at hearings where they had involvement. The court acknowledged the plaintiffs' arguments regarding the reduced preparation time due to the late withdrawal of certain applications but concluded that it would not be appropriate to reduce the costs claims significantly based on this factor alone.

Ultimately, the court ordered the plaintiffs to pay costs to each of the defendant groups in the amounts sought, reduced by 20% to reflect the considerations mentioned. The court aimed to balance the need for reasonable costs against the plaintiffs' right to be present and represented at the hearing.

Orders