Preiss v Vermeulen

[2025] NZHC 2344

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-002082 [2025] NZHC 2344

BETWEEN

JAQUES PREISS

Plaintiff

AND

KARL VERMEULEN

First Defendant

LOUISE VERMEULEN

Second Defendant

MEREDITH CONNELL LIMITED

Third Defendant

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

A Nair for the Plaintiff

J W H Little for the First and Second Defendants No appearance for the Third Defendant

Judgment:

19 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE COGSWELL

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 August 2025 at 4.00 p.m. pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date.......................................

Solicitors:

Churton Hart & Divers, Auckland Meredith Connell, Auckland

Nair & Associates, Auckland J W H Little, Auckland

PREISS v VERMEULEN [2025] NZHC 2344 [19 August 2025]

Introduction

[1]                 On 30 May 2025 the Court gave judgment on the parties’ claims in this proceeding.

[2]                 The Court granted the defendants’ application for summary judgment on their counterclaim.

[3]                 The plaintiff’s application for summary judgment sought orders for delivery up of the stamp albums the subject of the proceeding, compensation for diminution in value, or alternatively, payment of the value of the stamp albums of $3.6 million and damages for conversion.

[4]The plaintiff’s claims were defended by the defendants.

[5]                 During the hearing the plaintiff abandoned all claims for damages and gave an undertaking that no claim for damages would be commenced in the future. This resulted in the defendants withdrawing their opposition to the application for orders for delivery up of the stamp albums.

[6]                 The defendants now seek costs against the plaintiff on both their successful summary judgment application and on defending the plaintiff’s summary judgment application.

[7]The plaintiff has not filed a memorandum responding to the costs claims.

Approach to costs

[8]                 The starting point on costs is that generally in relation to the determination of costs:

(a)the party who fails with respect to a proceeding or an interlocutory application should pay costs to the party who succeeds;

(b)an award of costs should reflect the complexity and significance of the proceeding;

(c)costs should 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;

(d)an award of costs should not exceed the costs incurred by the party claiming the costs, and

(e)so far as possible, the determination of costs should be predictable and expeditious.

[9]                 The determination of costs is an exercise of the Court’s discretion. That said, the discretion is not unfettered and has to be exercised judicially.

The defendants’ counterclaim

[10]The defendants succeeded on their counterclaim.

[11]              In terms of the standard approach to costs, therefore, the defendants are entitled to costs in their favour against the plaintiff. The appropriate scale for costs is 2B.

[12]              The defendants acknowledge that some of the costs claimed also involved responding to the plaintiff’s summary judgment application, so there is an element of doubling up.

[13]Those attendances are:

(a)preparation for first case management conference;

(b)memoranda for case management conferences;

(c)appearance at case management conferences;

(d)appearance at the hearing.

[14]               A discount of 50 per cent to account for the doubling up of attendances on the management and conduct of the proceeding to hearing is appropriate.

[15]The defendants’ claim for costs on their claim is:

Step	Time Allocation	Discounted *
Counterclaim	1.6	1.6
Preparation for first CMC	0.4	0.2*
Filing memorandum x2	0.4 x 2	0.4*
Appearance at CMC x2	0.2 x 2	0.2*
Filing application	0.6	0.6
Preparation of written submissions	1.5	1.5
Appearance at hearing	1	0.5*
Sealing of orders	0.2	0.2
5.2 x $2,390 = $12,428

[16]              The total costs claim made by the defendants on their claim is $12,428.00. That sum is calculated in accordance with scale costs at 2B. I grant costs to the defendants in the amount of $12,428.00.

[17]              The defendants are entitled to their disbursements which include the filing fee for the counterclaim of $1,755.00 and the fee for sealing the judgment of $65.00. This gives a total of $14,248.00. I grant judgment in the defendants’ favour in that amount.

The plaintiff’s claim

[18]              Assessment of the defendants’ claim to costs on the plaintiff’s claim is less straightforward. The plaintiff withdrew its claims for damages in the course of the hearing. However, the plaintiff did advance his claims up until the commencement of hearing, forcing the defendants to defend them.

[19]              Once the plaintiff withdrew his damages claims and provided an undertaking that he would not reassert any damages claims in the future, then the parties were able to resolve the remaining claim for the return of his stamp albums.

[20]              That cannot be considered success for the plaintiff. The defendants were successful in resisting the damages claims.

Costs claim on the plaintiff’s claim

[21]              The defendants seek costs on the plaintiff’s claim and I consider that they are entitled to costs.

[22]              The defendants say the same discounts apply as were acknowledged in their claim for costs on their counterclaim.

[23]The defendants make the following costs claim against the plaintiff:

Step	Time Allocation	Discounted *
Statement of Defence	2	2
Preparation for first CMC	0.4	0.2*
Filing memorandum x2	0.4 x 2	0.4*
Appearance at CMC x2	0.2 x 2	0.2*

Notice of opposition x2	0.6 x 2	1.2
Preparation of written submissions	1.5	1.5
Appearance at hearing	1	0.5*
6 x $2,390 = $14,340

[24]              The total costs claim made by the defendants on defending the plaintiff’s claim, taking into account the discounts for doubling up, is $14,340.00. That sum is calculated in accordance with scale costs at 2B. I grant costs to the defendants in the amount of $14,340.00.

[25]              I grant the defendants’ claim for disbursements on defending the plaintiff’s claim in the sum of $429.00. This gives a total of $14,769.00. I grant judgment in the defendants’ favour in that amount.

Result

[26]              I grant the defendants the sum of $14,248.00 for their costs and disbursements against the plaintiff on their successful claim.

[27]              I grant the defendants the sum of $14,769.00 for their costs and disbursements against the plaintiff on their successful defence of the plaintiff’s claim.

Associate Judge Cogswell