ORH1 Exploration Fishing Company Limited v Minister of Fisheries HC Wellington CIV 2006-485-2099

[2007] NZHC 1574

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV 2006-485-2099

UNDER  the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

BETWEEN  ORH1 EXPLORATORY FISHING COMPANY LIMITED

First Applicant

AND  ESPERANCE FISHING CO LIMITED AND ORNEAGAN DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED

Second Applicants

AND  THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES First Respondent

AND  THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF FISHERIES

Second Respondent

Counsel:        F M R Cooke QC for Applicants

P McCarthy for Respondents

Judgment:      2 February 2007

JUDGMENT ON COSTS OF MILLER J

[1]      I have considered the memoranda filed on each side, and I address the points of difference between the parties using the headings in Ms Arthur’s memorandum of

19 December 2006.

Categorisation of the proceeding

[2]      I accept Mr Cooke’s submission that category 3 is appropriate.  Although this was a judicial review application, its subject matter is one requiring special skill and

experience.

ORH1 EXPLORATORY FISHING COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOR V THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2006-485-2099  2 February 2007

Banding of the interim relief application

[3]      Band  B  is  appropriate.    I  accept  that  several  affidavits  were  filed,  and significant written submissions prepared, but I do not think that takes the matter out of the ordinary run of interim relief applications.  The general issue appeared to have been well rehearsed between the parties before proceedings were filed.

Allowance for second counsel

[4]      The  matter was  important, and allowance  for  second  counsel  is  justified along with travelling expenses.

Pre-trial preparation

[5]      I am prepared to accept that some trial preparation had been undertaken when the Minister capitulated, but the full allowance should not be made.   I accept the allowance of 2.5 days suggested by Ms Arthur.

Memorandum in relation to judgment

[6]      I agree with Ms Arthur that no allowance should be made for Mr Cooke’s memorandum of 8 December 2006, to which I assume this amount relates.

Solicitors:

Oceanlaw New Zealand, Nelson for Applicants

Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents

F Miller J