Stan Semenoff Logging Limited v New Zealand Transport Agency

[2019] NZHC 2751

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-480

[2019] NZHC 2751

BETWEEN

STAN SEMENOFF LOGGING LIMITED

Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY

Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

D J Neutze and S Corlett for Applicant

P F Wicks QC and R McCoubrey for Respondent

Judgment:

29 October 2019

COSTS JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 October 2019 at 4.00 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ………………………….

Solicitors:           Brookfields, Auckland

Meredith Connell, Auckland

STAN SEMENOFF LOGGING LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY [2019] NZHC 2751 [29

October 2019]

[1]    I have an application for costs from Stan Semenoff Logging Limited (the plaintiff). In my substantive judgment, I indicated I would grant interim orders preserving the position of the applicant, subject to the formulation of conditions. I also indicated that the respondent’s concerns in relation to the applicant were justified and that there was evidence of a systemic problem.

[2]    The plaintiff accepts that costs on a 2B basis are appropriate for most steps, but submits that the following individual steps should be classified as “Band C” pursuant to rr 14.3 and 14.5:

(a)Plaintiff’s interlocutory application for interim orders (step 1): this required extensive affidavits in support of the application and, in combination, the application and affidavits required a comparatively large amount of time.

(b)Plaintiff’s submissions for the hearing (step 8): these were extensive and comprehensive and required a comparatively long amount of time to complete.

(c)Plaintiff’s preparation of the bundles for the hearing (step 9): the extensive affidavits and exhibits filed in this proceeding resulted in a comparatively large amount of time being required to complete the bundles of documents.

[3]Accordingly, the plaintiff seeks a costs award of $23,972.50.

[4]    The respondent submits that no steps in the interim relief proceedings justify Band C classification, as the proceedings have been an ordinary interlocutory application, requiring a normal amount of time for each step in these proceedings. The respondent also submits that, in light of the Court’s findings that the respondent’s concerns in relation to the application are justified and that the number and duration of non-compliances suggests a systemic problem, it was appropriate the respondent resisted the application for interim relief. Accordingly, the respondent submits a costs award totalling $18,813.50 is more appropriate.

[5]    I am not satisfied that the steps the plaintiff has referred to were sufficiently complex or time-consuming to justify a Band C application. A costs order on a 2B basis only is therefore sufficient. If quantum is not agreed, it shall be fixed by the registrar. There shall be an order accordingly.