Peterson v Lucas

[2015] NZHC 1626

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-002695 [2015] NZHC 1626

BETWEEN

CARL JAMES PETERSON

Plaintiff

AND

WARREN GEOFFREY LUCAS Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	Plaintiff in person T J Walker and J C Dickson for Defendant
Judgment:	13 July 2015

COSTS JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 July 2015 at 4.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ………………………….

Solicitors:           Simpson Grierson, Auckland

PETERSON v LUCAS [2015] NZHC 1626 [13 July 2015]

[1]      The defendant succeeded in these proceedings, the decision of which was given on 24 April 2015.1   The decision followed an application by the defendant for summary judgment or, in the ultimate, strike out by the plaintiff for, among other things, summary judgment. The defendant succeeded in its applications.

[2]      The  proceedings  were  struck  out  as  an  abuse  of  process.    The  decision reserved the question of costs.   The defendant has sought costs on a 2B basis of

$12,537, plus disbursements of $2,846.64.

[3]      The plaintiff has responded in two ways.  Firstly, the plaintiff seeks a stay of costs pending the hearing of his appeal to the Court of Appeal.  He advances no other reasons for stay. The fact that he has elected to appeal to the Court of Appeal is not a ground for stay for an order fixing costs.  It may be a ground for a stay enforcing costs. That is a separate matter.

[4]      In his memorandum on costs itself, the plaintiff argues that the cost claims are extravagant.  There were no difficult issues of law to explore and, under these circumstances, a reduced costs award would be appropriate.

[5]      The defendant has prepared an application for costs on a 2B basis following

Schedules Two and Three.

[6]      I have considered whether there is an overlap in preparing the statement of defence and filing the applications to strike out, two and 0.6 days respectively.  To that end, I have examined the two pleadings.   Naturally there is an overlap.  That said, however, the two pleadings required particularity and that was delivered in the texts.  It was necessary in order to advance the claim for strike out on an abuse of process to cover the history of the matter meticulously.

[7]      For these reasons, I am satisfied that the claim for both items separately was appropriate.  The rest of the claims are routine.  Accordingly, I am of the view that

1      Peterson v Lucas [2015] NZHC 721, 24 April 2015.

the successful defendant is entitled to costs on a 2B basis as claimed for a total of

$12,537 plus disbursements of $2,846.64, a total of $15,383.64.