Scandle v Far North District Council

[2012] NZHC 2094

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CIV-2008-488-000203 [2012] NZHC 2094

BETWEEN  MICHAEL JOHN SCANDLE Plaintiff

ANDFAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL First Defendant

ANDCORINA LILI MULLANE AND MICHAEL JAMES MULLANE AS TRUSTEES OF THE MULLANE FAMILY TRUST

Second Defendants

ANDMICHAEL JAMES MULLANE Third Defendant

Hearing:         17 August 2012 (On the Papers)

Counsel:         J D Turner for the Plaintiff

S A Thodey, F P Divich and S B Mitchell for the First Defendant

Judgment:      17 August 2012

JUDGMENT (NO 3) OF DUFFY J [Re Costs]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Duffy on 17 August 2012 at 4.30 pm, pursuant to

r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Solicitors:   McVeagh  Fleming  P O  Box  300844 Albany  0752  (DX  BX10647)  for  the

Plaintiff

Heaney and Co P O Box 105391 Auckland City Auckland 1143 (CP18503) for the First Defendant

Copies To:   C L Mullane and M J Mullane (Second and Third Defendants) P O Box 923

Kerikeri 0245

R C Mark P O Box 172 Kerikeri 0245

SCANDLE v FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL and ORS HC WHA CIV-2008-488-000203 [17 August 2012]

[1]      I have considered the memoranda that counsel have filed in response to my judgment  (No  2)  on  costs,  dated  12  July  2012:  see  Scandle  v  Far  North District Council (No 2) [2012] NZHC 1675.

[2]      Those memoranda reveal that the parties are still discovering minor errors in their approach to costs.  The power to award costs is discretionary.  It is not an exact science.  I am satisfied that the time has come when the quantification of the first defendant’s entitlement to costs should be at an end.  Having read the memoranda, I am satisfied that the appropriate quanta should be as follows:

(a)       The first defendant is entitled to costs in the sum of $112,960; and

(b)      Disbursements of $96,264.64.

[3]      Accordingly, I make orders in those terms.

Duffy J