Staples v Freeman

[2020] NZHC 1124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2016-409-000309

[2020] NZHC 1124

BETWEEN

BRYAN DOUGLAS STAPLES

First Plaintiff

AND

CLAIMS RESOLUTION SERVICE LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

AND

RICHARD LOGAN FREEMAN

First Defendant

AND

MEDIAWORKS TV LIMITED

Second Defendant

AND

KATE McCALLUM

Third Defendant

AND

TRISTRAM CLAYTON

Fourth Defendant

Hearing:

23 April 2020

Appearances:

P A Morten for Plaintiffs (via VML)

L C Bercovitch for Defendants (via VML)

Judgment:

26 May 2020

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 May 2020 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: 26 May 2020

STAPLES v FREEMAN [2020] NZHC 1124 [26 May 2020]

[1]                 The plaintiffs are suing the defendants in defamation. However, that claim has yet to be heard. Instead, the parties have been embroiled in a series of interlocutory applications, one of which was the subject of an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

[2]                 The parties have had mixed success on those applications and could not agree on costs. Costs were ultimately determined by Associate Judge Lester in his judgment of 14 June 2019.1

[3]                 The plaintiffs now apply for review of two aspects of the Judge’s costs decision, pursuant to s 26P(1) of the Judicature Act 1908. They assert the Judge erred when he:

(a)awarded the full costs of $15,295 (including GST) of the defendants’ expert accounting witness, as a disbursement;

(b)determined that costs should lie where they fall on the interlocutory applications which were heard in June 2018, and where the plaintiffs were successful in two of the three issues raised in the applications.

[4]                 The defendants’ position is that the Judge’s decision on both issues was a plainly defensible exercise of discretion in costs matters and the application for review should be dismissed.

Background

[5]                 Mr Staples and his company, Claims Resolution Service Limited (CRS), are in the business of providing assistance to property owners with unresolved Earthquake Commission (EQC) and insurance claims for properties damaged in the Christchurch earthquakes. The proceedings involve a claim that the defendants defamed Mr Staples and CRS when they made allegations of fraudulent or illegitimate practices in providing such assistance. The relief sought includes special damages for a claimed loss of profits in the six months after the impugned statements were published.

1      Staples v Freeman [2019] NZHC 1347.

[6]                 The claim was filed in 2016. Since then, a number of interlocutory applications have been made which are relevant to the costs judgment under review. The interlocutory applications involve only the second, third and fourth defendants who, for convenience, are referred to collectively as the media defendants.

[7]                 The media defendants made two applications. The first was an application for further and better discovery in respect of the plaintiffs’ special damages claim. It was filed on 14 December 2017. The defendants sought discovery of all documents relating to CRS clients for the period 1 June 2013 to 1 July 2016.…