Rebnik Properties Limited v Dobbs

[2021] NZHC 1820

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2015-404-964

[2021] NZHC 1820

BETWEEN

REBNIK PROPERTIES LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

TROY JOHN DOBBS

First Defendant

AND

ALUMINIUM REPAIRS LIMITED

Second Defendant

CIV 2015-404-1602

BETWEEN

ALUMINIUM REPAIRS LIMITED

First Plaintiff

AND

TROY JOHN DOBBS

Second Plaintiff

AND

MICHAEL GRANT RING

Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	D R Bigio QC and A J Steel for Plaintiff/Defendant No appearance for the Defendants/Plaintiffs
Judgment:	19 July 2021

COSTS JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 July 2021 at 2:00 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

REBNIK PROPERTIES LIMITED v DOBBS [2021] NZHC 1820 [19 July 2021]

[1]                 These two proceedings were tried together in August and September 2020. I delivered judgment on 22 December 2020. In CIV-2015-404-964, I gave judgment to Rebnik Properties Ltd (Rebnik) against Mr Dobbs. In CIV-2015-404-1602, I gave judgment to Mr Ring on the claims brought by Aluminium Repairs Ltd (ARL) and Mr Dobbs.

[2]                 I reserved costs. I directed that any submissions on costs be filed and served for Rebnik and Mr Ring by 26 February 2021, and for ARL and Mr Dobbs by 12 March 2021.

[3]Mr Dobbs was adjudicated bankrupt on 11 February 2021.

[4]                 Rebnik and Mr Ring filed submissions, as directed, by 26 February 2021. No submissions have been filed by ARL or Mr Dobbs. Counsel who previously appeared for ARL and Mr Dobbs has informed counsel for Rebnik and Mr Ring that he is without instructions.

[5]                 Regrettably, the costs submissions of Rebnik and Mr Ring were referred to me only this morning.

[6]                 Rebnik and Mr Ring were the successful parties in the two proceedings. They are entitled to costs against Mr Dobbs and ARL. That Mr Dobbs is now an undischarged bankrupt does not preclude the making of a costs award against him.1

[7]                 Rebnik and Mr Ring seek a global costs award. That is, they seek one costs award in their favour for all of the steps taken in the two proceedings, rather than separate costs awards (one in favour of Rebnik, the other in favour of Mr Ring) for each proceeding. In my view, it is clearly appropriate that there be one global costs award.2 The two proceedings were appropriately heard together, given that they shared common legal and factual issues.

1      Skelton v Howcroft [2018] NZCA 140 at [22].

2      Aiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd [1986] AC 965 at 980 per Lord Goff.

[8]                 Rebnik and Mr Ring claim costs in the sum of $114,301.50. As part of their claim, Rebnik and Mr Ring seek certification for second counsel. That is appropriate. Both sides had two counsel at the hearing. This was reasonable, given the number of witnesses, and the complexity of the factual and legal issues.

[9]  Rebnik and Mr Ring have provided a schedule setting out the items for which costs are claimed. I approve those items.

[10]              Rebnik and Mr Ring also seek disbursements totalling $217,773.46. These disbursements primarily consist of expert witness costs. I am satisfied that the evidence of the various expert witnesses was reasonably necessary for the conduct of the proceeding, that the amount of time claimed for the attendance of those experts was reasonable, and that the hourly rates charged were appropriate. Accordingly, I approve the disbursements sought.

Result

[11]              I order that ARL and Mr Dobbs pay costs of $114,301.50 and disbursements of $217,773.46 to Rebnik and Mr Ring. The liability of ARL and Mr Dobbs for these costs and disbursements is joint and several.

Campbell J