Staples v Freeman - [2019] NZHC 1347

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2016-409-309

[2019] NZHC 1347

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: (Determined on the papers)

Counsel:

P A Morten and A L Austin for First and Second Plaintiffs Nothing filed for First Defendant

J W J Graham, T F Cleary and L C Bercovitch for Second, Third and Fourth Defendants

Judgment:

14 June 2019

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

Introduction

[1] Counsel have filed numerous memoranda seeking to deal with costs issues arising from my judgment of 16 April 2019,1 and the costs arising from the decision

1 Staples v Freeman [2019] NZHC 839.

STAPLES v FREEMAN [2019] NZHC 1347 [14 June 2019].

of the Court of Appeal dated 3 May 20192 reversing in part an earlier decision of Associate Judge Matthews dated 2 July 2018 between the parties.3

[2] The Court of Appeal decision quashed the costs orders made by the Associate Judge on 13 September 20184 and directed that if the parties could not agree High Court costs, then the matter was to be determined by this Court.

Judgment of 16 April 20195

[3] The parties do not disagree about the applicable principles. Under r 14.8 of the High Court Rules, costs on opposed interlocutory applications are to be fixed when the application is determined and become payable when they are fixed.

[4] McGechan on Procedure at HR14.8.02 notes that determination includes determination by the Court or by another mechanism such as agreement of the parties.

Costs following the event

[5] The principal debate in respect of the various applications that were dealt with on 16 April 2019 is: who was successful. McGechan at HR14.2.01(1)(b) under the heading “Partial success” records:

The starting point is that “success on more limited terms is still success”: Weaver v Auckland Council [2017] NZCA 330 at [26]. The requirement to focus on the success of the successful party is emphasised in Water Guard NZ Ltd v Midgen Enterprises Ltd [2017] NZCA 36 at [13] affirmed in Midgen Enterprises Ltd v UV Water Systems Ltd [2017] NZSC 68...

[6] As recorded in my judgment, six applications were before the Court at the commencement of the hearing on 26 March 2019.

2      Mediaworks TV Ltd v Staples [2019] NZCA 133.
3      Staples v Claims Resolution Services Ltd [2018] NZHC 1604.
4      Staples v Freeman [2018] ZHC 2406.
5      Above n 1.

Defendants’ applications

[7] There were two separate applications by the defendants before the Court: an application for a direction that the trial be a Judge-alone trial; and an application for further and better discovery from the plaintiffs.

[8] As recorded in my judgment, immediately prior to the hearing a memorandum of counsel was filed advising that the defendants’ applications were being dealt with…

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 Staples v Freeman

Details

AGLC: Staples v Freeman [2019] NZHC 1347
Case: [2019] NZHC 1347
Decision Date: 14 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Staples v Freeman involves multiple parties and disputes stemming from an earlier litigation. The First Plaintiff, Bryan Douglas Staples, and the Second Plaintiff, Claims Resolution Service Limited, filed claims against the First Defendant, Richard Logan Freeman, the Second Defendant, Mediaworks TV Limited, the Third Defendant, Kate McCallum, and the Fourth Defendant, Tristram Clayton. The dispute includes issues concerning a defamation claim, costs, and procedural matters arising from previous court decisions. The High Court of New Zealand was tasked with resolving the costs issues following the Court of Appeal's decision to partially reverse an earlier decision by Associate Judge Matthews.

The court had to determine the appropriate allocation of costs among the parties following several interlocutory applications. These applications included requests for further and better particulars, further and better discovery, and a strike-out motion. The key legal issues were whether the parties were successful in their applications and, if so, the extent of their success and the appropriate basis for awarding costs. The court also had to consider the implications of the Court of Appeal's decision on the previous costs orders.

Associate Judge Lester concluded that the defendants were successful in their applications for a Judge-alone trial and further and better discovery, which should be treated as one application. Consequently, the defendants were awarded costs on a 2B basis. The plaintiffs, however, achieved limited success in their applications for further and better particulars and the strike-out motion, which also led to a limited success in the discovery application. The court treated the plaintiffs' applications as one application, resulting in a 2B basis for awarding costs to the plaintiffs. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs must refund the costs previously awarded by Associate Judge Matthews but later quashed by the Court of Appeal.

The final orders included the determination of costs for the interlocutory applications and the requirement for the plaintiffs to refund the previously awarded costs to the defendants.

Orders