New Zealand Bloodstock Finance & Leasing Limited v Jones

[2023] NZHC 2364

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-1822

CIV-2020-404-1357 [2023] NZHC 2364

BETWEEN

NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK FINANCE & LEASING LIMITED

Applicant

AND

GREGORY JOHN JONES

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	A Osama and F King for the Applicant G J Jones, Respondent in Person
Judgment:	29 August 2023

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SUSSOCK

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 August 2023 at 12pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

McKenna King, Hamilton

NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK FINANCE & LEASING LTD v JONES [2023] NZHC 2364 [29 August 2023]

Introduction

[1]                 I issued a judgment on 9 December 20221 granting the applicant, New Zealand Bloodstock Finance and Leasing Limited (Bloodstock), a stay of enforcement of a costs order of $21,032 made by Harland J in favour of the respondent, Gregory John Jones.2

[2]                 I asked the parties to confer and try to agree costs but if that was not possible to file memoranda. Memoranda have now been filed, on 16 December 2022 on behalf of Bloodstock and in response by Mr Jones on 25 January 2023. Unfortunately, these memoranda have only been referred to me recently. I apologise on behalf of the Court for the delay in issuing this judgment.

Costs sought on a 1B basis

[3]                 Bloodstock seeks costs on a 1B basis in the amount of $4,054.50 plus disbursements of $500. Counsel record that they attempted to confer with the respondent, but that Mr Jones refused to engage. Counsel for Bloodstock submit that there is no reason to depart from the principle that costs should follow the event. Bloodstock originally sought costs on a 2B basis but has reduced its claim to costs on a 1B basis as set out in the schedule attached to the memorandum.

[4]                 Mr Jones resists a costs award on the basis that “it was appropriate [for him] to proceed to enforce [his] judgment” and that “appropriateness should dictate that costs be reserved” until the outcome of the two appeals brought by Mr Jones are determined.

[5]                 As a result of the delay in this decision, those two appeals have now been determined in Bloodstock’s favour.3

[6]                 Mr Jones does not set out any basis other than the two appeals for costs not to follow the event and nor does there appear to be.

1      New Zealand Bloodstock Finance and Leasing Ltd v Jones [2022] NZHC 3333.

2      New Zealand Bloodstock Finance and Leasing Limited v Jones [2022] NZHC 948.

3      Jones v New Zealand Bloodstock Finance and Leasing Limited [2023] NZSC 98 and Jones v New Zealand Bloodstock Finance and Leasing Limited [2023] NZCA 169.

[7]The claim on a 1B basis appears to be readily justifiable in the circumstances.

Result

[8]                 Costs are awarded to Bloodstock on a 1B basis in the amount of $4,054.50 plus disbursements of $500.

Associate Judge Sussock