Spring v Browne - [2023] NZHC 2581

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2021-404-000992

[2023] NZHC 2581

UNDER the Defamation Act 1992

IN THE MATTER OF

a claim for injurious falsehood

BETWEEN

MARC ROBERT SPRING

Plaintiff

AND

CORY DAVID BROWNE

First Defendant

GLENN CHARLES TULLOCH

Second Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

M R Spring, Plaintiff in person J D Evans for the Defendants

Judgment:

15 September 2023

JUDGMENT OF TAHANA J

(Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 September 2023 at 2.00pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Hayman Lawyers, Wellington Copy to:
Mr Spring (Plaintiff)

SPRING v BROWNE (Costs) [2023] NZHC 2581 [15 September 2023]

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff failed in his claims against the defendants.1 I indicated that the successful party would ordinarily be entitled to costs on a category 2B basis together with disbursements. I granted leave to the parties to file costs memoranda if they were unable to agree costs.2

[2] The parties have been unable to agree, and the defendants now seek indemnity costs and disbursements of $60,191.97 (including GST) plus $1,725.00 for the costs of this application. Alternatively, the defendants seek increased costs as determined by the Court. Counsel estimate that costs under category 2B amount to $35,850.00.

[3]The defendants also seek an order that costs be paid within seven days.

[4] The plaintiff says that costs on a category 2B basis are appropriate and that the defendants are not entitled to claim indemnity or increased costs. The plaintiff also says the defendants’ counsel has miscalculated the 2B costs and the costs of this application should lie where they fall.

Analysis

Increased or indemnity costs

[5] Costs are at the discretion of the Court. The Court may award increased costs or indemnity costs in the circumstances specified in r 14.6(3) and (4) of the High Court Rules 2016:

(3)The court may order a party to pay increased costs if—

(a)the nature of the proceeding or the step in it is such that the time required by the party claiming costs would substantially exceed the time allocated under band C; or

(b)the party opposing costs has contributed unnecessarily to the time or expense of the proceeding or step in it by—

(i)failing to comply with these rules or with a direction of the court; or

1 Spring v Browne [2023] NZHC 1173 at [58].
2 At [59].

(ii)taking or pursuing an unnecessary step or an argument that lacks merit; or

(iii)failing, without reasonable justification, to admit facts, evidence, documents, or accept a legal argument; or

(iv)failing, without reasonable justification, to comply with an order for discovery, a notice for further particulars, a notice for interrogatories, or other similar requirement under these rules; or

(v)failing, without reasonable justification, to accept an offer of settlement whether in the form of an offer under rule 14.10 or some other offer to settle or dispose of the proceeding; or

(c)the proceeding is of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Spring v Browne

Details

AGLC: Spring v Browne [2023] NZHC 2581
Case: [2023] NZHC 2581
Decision Date: 15 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Spring v Browne involves a claim for injurious falsehood under the Defamation Act 1992. The plaintiff, Marc Robert Spring, alleged that the defendants, Cory David Browne and Glenn Charles Tulloch, made defamatory statements about him. The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, presided over the case, which was heard on the papers. The defendants were represented by counsel, while the plaintiff appeared in person. The court delivered its judgment on 15 September 2023. The central legal issues in this case were whether the defendants were entitled to increased or indemnity costs and, if so, the appropriate amount of those costs.

The court considered the legal principles governing increased and indemnity costs under the High Court Rules 2016. It noted that the defendants had the burden of proving that the plaintiff's conduct warranted such costs. The court evaluated the defendants' arguments, including the excessive initial damages claim and the plaintiff's rejection of settlement offers. However, the court found that the plaintiff's actions were not vexatious, frivolous, or unnecessary, particularly given his efforts to address the alleged defamatory comments before filing the lawsuit. The court also noted that the defendants' settlement offers were not genuinely aimed at resolving the dispute, as they did not offer any costs relief or address the plaintiff's concerns. Additionally, the court held that the defendants failed to provide sufficient information to justify the quantum of costs claimed, including the GST component.

Based on its analysis, the court declined to award increased or indemnity costs to the defendants, determining that the plaintiff's conduct did not warrant such costs. The court did, however, adjust the scale costs claimed by the defendants to correct certain errors in their calculations. The court concluded that the defendants were only entitled to costs on a category 2B basis, amounting to $36,567.00 plus disbursements (excluding GST), and ordered that these costs be paid within seven days of the judgment. The costs of this application were to lie where they fell.

In summary, the court ruled that the defendants were not entitled to increased or indemnity costs despite their request for such relief. The court awarded the defendants costs on a category 2B basis, adjusted for certain errors, and ordered that these costs be paid within seven days. The costs of the application itself were to lie where they fell.

Orders