Sellman v Slater

[2016] NZHC 2594

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-001312 [2016] NZHC 2594

UNDER

the Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

JOHN DOUGLAS SELLMAN First Plaintiff

BOYD ANTHONY SWINBURN Second Plaintiff

SHANE KAWENATA FREDERICK BRADBROOK

Third Plaintiff

AND

CAMERON JOHN SLATER First Defendant

CARRICK DOUGLAS MONTROSE GRAHAM

Second Defendant

… cont

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	D M Salmon and D Nilsson for Plaintiffs B P Henry for First Defendant E J Grove for Second Defendant W Akel for Proposed Fourth and Fifth Defendants
Judgment:	1 November 2016

JUDGMENT NO 3 OF PALMER J (INTERLOCUTORY COSTS)

This judgment is delivered by me on Tuesday 1 November 2016 at 10.00 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

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

Counsel/Solicitors:

Lee Salmon Long, Auckland  E J Grove, Barrister, Auckland

B P Henry, Barrister, Auckland  Simpson Grierson, Auckland

SELLMAN v SLATER No 3 [2016] NZHC 2594 [1 November 2016]

FACILITATE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED

Third Defendant

KATHERINE RICH Fourth Defendant

NEW ZEALAND FOOD & GROCERY COUNCIL INCORPORATED

Fifth Defendant

[1]      On 11 October 2016 I granted the plaintiffs’ application for joinder of the fourth and fifth defendants.1   It was opposed by the first, fourth and fifth defendants. The second defendant abided the court’s decision.

[2]      The plaintiffs seek costs in accordance with r 14.8(1) of the High Court Rules

2016 which provides costs on an opposed interlocutory application must be fixed when the application is determined unless there are special reasons to the contrary.

[3]      The  second  and  third  defendants  also  seek  costs,  from  the  plaintiffs,  in relation to their counsel’s appearance at the joinder hearing.  They say the plaintiffs should have named the fourth and fifth defendants at the outset.

[4]      The fourth and fifth defendants submit costs should lie where they fall since they were earlier successful in opposing joinder without an application.

[5]      I see no reason why costs should not be fixed now.   The plaintiffs were successful.   The fourth and fifth defendants insisted a formal application be made and opposed it.  Costs follow the event.  I award costs in favour of the plaintiffs from the first, fourth and fifth defendants as sought.

[6]      I do not order costs in favour of the second and third defendants. Appearance by their counsel was not necessary.

..................................................................

Palmer J

1      Sellman & Ors v Slater & Ors [2016] NZHC 2415.