New Zealand Bloodstock Finance & Leasing Limited v Jones

[2024] NZHC 292

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-1770

[2024] NZHC 292

BETWEEN

NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK FINANCE & LEASING LIMITED

Judgment Creditor

AND

GREGORY JOHN JONES

Judgment Debtor

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	F A King for Judgment Creditor Judgment Debtor in person
Judgment:	23 February 2024

JUDGMENT OF O’GORMAN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 February 2024 at 3 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:    McKenna King Dempster, Hamilton Copy to:       G J Jones

NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK FINANCE & LEASING LIMITED v JONES [2024] NZHC 292 [23

February 2024]

[1]                 On 26 January 2024, I delivered a judgment in favour of the judgment creditor, declining the judgment debtor’s application seeking a stay/suspension pending appeal. I ordered costs in favour of the judgment creditor on a 2B basis and directed that any disputed issues be referred to me.

[2]                 The judgment creditor has filed a memorandum of costs dated 30 January 2024 claiming two items listed in sch 3 of the High Court Rules 2016:

(a)item 24 (written submissions), 1.5 days; and

(b)item 26 (attendance at hearing), 0.5 days.

[3]                 This results in a total of two days at the daily recovery rate of $2,390 specified in sch 2, making a total costs claim of $4,780.

[4]                 The judgment debtor has filed a memorandum dated 7 February 2024 taking the position that “costs should not be awarded at that level”, and there should be an award of no more than $1,000 in costs. His reasons relate to complaints about the substantive judgments issued previously, criticism of previous cost awards, and allegations that the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have overlooked evidence, been tainted with bias, or lacked competence. He places my judgment in the same category and disagrees with my analysis and the outcome.    Mr Jones also submits that the judgment creditor’s involvement in this application was “hardly necessary at all” and any award of costs should reflect that.

[5]                 The Court has a general discretion to award costs under r 14.1, but r 14.2 provides a clear statement of the principles to be applied in most cases.

(a)Under r 14.2(1)(a), the party who fails with respect to a proceeding or an interlocutory application should pay costs to the party who succeeds.

(b)Under r 14.2(1)(b), an award of costs should reflect the complexity and significance of the proceeding. For those purposes, r 14.3 provides for three categories of proceeding. Category 2 applies to proceedings of average complexity requiring counsel of skill and experience

considered average in the High Court. Rule 14.4 provides that the appropriate daily recovery rates are specified in sch 2: $2,390 for Category 2 proceedings.

(c)Rule 14.2(1)(c) provides that costs should generally be assessed by applying the appropriate daily recovery rate to the time considered reasonable for each step reasonably required in relation to the proceeding or interlocutory application. For those purposes, r 14.5 specifies that a reasonable time is set out in sch 3 for each step, or a reasonable time should be determined by analogy. This is done by reference to whether the step falls within band A, B or C. Band B applies if a normal amount of time is considered reasonable.

(d)Rule 14.2(1)(f) provides that an award of costs should not exceed the actual costs incurred by the party.

[6]                 The integrity of the scale, with its associated value of predictability and certainty, is not to be lightly discarded.1 I consider that those principles apply and nothing in what Mr Jones has raised justifies any departure from scale costs in this case. The two items claimed on behalf of the judgment creditor are entirely appropriate and were genuinely incurred.

[7]Accordingly, I award costs to the judgment creditor of $4,780.

O’Gorman J

1      Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corporation (2008) 18 PRNZ 859 at [9]; upheld in Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corporation [2009] NZCA 234, [2009] 3 NZLR 400.