Sleight v Beckia Holdings Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2017-409-000818

[2021] NZHC 456

BETWEEN

JOAN MARGARET FRASER SLEIGHT and ALAN LEITHFIELD SLEIGHT
Plaintiffs

AND

BECKIA HOLDINGS LIMITED

(PREVIOUSLY FR 2012 LIMITED and FARRELL RESIDENTIAL LIMITED
First Defendant

ORANGE H MANAGEMENT LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY HAWKINS
MANAGEMENT LIMITED)

(In Receivership and In Liquidation) Second Defendant

IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Third Defendant

QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

Counsel:

D J Cooper and M J Borcoski for Plaintiffs

N S Gedye QC, O V Collette-Moxon and M K Booth for Third Defendant
D H McLellan QC, S D Galloway and L Green for Fourth Defendant

Judgment:

10 March 2021

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J AS TO COSTS AND INTEREST

(Determined on the papers)

SLEIGHT v BECKIA HOLDINGS LIMITED [2021] NZHC 456 [10 March 2021]

Costs

[1]                In a judgment I issued in this proceeding dated 30 October 20201 I reserved costs. I then went on to indicate that, in the event, counsel were unable to settle the costs issue between themselves, then memoranda could be filed and, in the absence of any party indicating they wished to be heard on the costs question, I would decide that based on the memoranda filed and the material then before the Court.

[2]                Initially, counsel advised that no agreement had been reached on the issue of costs. A significant number of memoranda on costs have since been filed, the latest being a joint memorandum received from counsel for the third defendant IAG and the fourth defendant QBE dated 4 March 2021 and filed 5 March 2021. That joint memorandum indicates that, as between IAG and QBE, they have now settled their respective costs claims and they no longer require this Court to determine those costs. The memorandum confirms there is also no issue as to costs on the various cost applications as between IAG and QBE.

[3]                That leaves outstanding the plaintiffs’ claim for costs as effectively the successful party, confirmed in my 30 October 2020 substantive judgment.

[4]                Here, the plaintiffs seek an order against QBE (and effectively against IAG jointly and severally) for the following:

(a)High Court scale costs totalling $177,180.63 calculated largely on a scale category 2B basis, although in relation to attendances for trial, calculated on a category 3 basis.

(b)Disbursements outlined in a memorandum of submissions totalling

$6,814.09.

(c)Expert costs totalling $204,802.61 also outlined in this memorandum of submissions.

1      Sleight v Beckia Holdings Ltd [2020] NZHC 2851.

[5]                As to these matters, I am satisfied r 14.2(1)(a) of the High Court Rules applies here enabling the plaintiffs as the party who largely succeeded in the proceeding being entitled to a payment of costs from both IAG and QBE as the parties who effectively failed as against the plaintiffs. Given this, as I see it, those parties would ordinarily be jointly and severally liable for the plaintiffs’ costs, disbursements and experts’ costs.

[6]                Counsel for the plaintiffs has acknowledged, however, that the plaintiffs did…