Tadd Management Limited v Weine

[2023] NZHC 2573

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2019-485-781

[2023] NZHC 2573

UNDER

sections 24–30 and 35 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017

IN THE MATTER OF

the property at 134 Queens Drive, Lower Hutt

BETWEEN

TADD MANAGEMENT LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

RUTH RENTON WEINE and MICHAEL

DAVID HOFFMAN-BODY as trustees of the Ruth Weine Family Trust
Defendants

AND

NEW ZEALAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED

Third Party

On the Papers

Counsel:

F Collins and J Perry for the Plaintiff

R J Fowler KC, M Wolff and H Dempsey for the Defendants

Judgment:

14 September 2023

COSTS JUDGMENT OF GWYN J (No 2)

Solicitors:

Gibson Sheat Lawyers, Wellington Morrison Kent, Wellington

TADD MANAGEMENT LIMITED v WEINE [2023] NZHC 2573 [14 September 2023]

[1]    The Court’s costs judgment of 26 July 2023 (the judgment)1 considered the plaintiff’s claim for costs under steps 20, 21 and 33A, for listed documents on discovery, inspection of documents and preparation of common bundle, respectively, and the disbursement of $5,292.71 (including GST) claimed for Streamlined Litigation Services (SLS) services. The judgment noted2 that it was not clear what was encompassed under the item “Streamlined Litigation Services (electronic discovery services and electronic casebook management by hyperlinking)”. The judgment said “[i]t appears that it may encompass both creation and use of an electronic document management platform on the one hand, and the preparation of a casebook, on the other.”

[2]    The Court noted that if the plaintiff wished to maintain its claim for this disbursement, in addition to recovery for the steps at 20, 21 and 33A, it must provide more details as to the disbursement and the extent to which, if at all, the claim overlaps with the steps in that scale.3

[3]    The plaintiffs have responded to the judgment by memorandum of 21 August 2023, to explain the delineation between the 2B costs claimed for steps 20, 21 and 33A and the amount claimed for the SLS disbursement.

[4]    The plaintiff’s memorandum notes that the SLS disbursement relates to the engagement of SLS to scan, code and create an electronic document management system, whereby documents were stamped, duplicates removed, and text searchable to enable the plaintiffs’ solicitors to efficiently carry out their discovery responsibilities. SLS maintained the electronic document management system, including adding and processing additional documents from time to time, and stored the documents for the duration of the case. The plaintiff says that although SLS was engaged by the plaintiff to assist with the preparation of the electronic common bundle and issued an invoice to the plaintiff for the assistance it provided, that invoice was not separately claimed as a disbursement by the plaintiff.

1      Tadd Management Ltd v Weine [2023] NZHC 1968.

2 At [42].

3 At [43].

[5]    Accordingly, the plaintiff says there is no overlap between the claim for the SLS disbursement and step 33A.

[6]    Counsel for the plaintiff refers to Mainzeal Property and Construction Ltd (in liq) v Yan4 and Jade Residential Ltd v Paul.5 In both cases the Court accepted that the full amount of the electronic discovery services and electronic casebook management and hyperlinking service (SLS in the first case and LawFlow, a similar service, in the second case) was allowed.

[7]    Having considered those authorities and the further detail provided by counsel’s memorandum, I accept that the disbursement claimed in relation to SLS is reasonably necessary, reasonable in quantum and does not overlap with discovery costs already claimed.

Order

[8]    I accordingly order that the plaintiff is entitled to 2B costs for steps 20, 21 and 33A, in addition to the disbursement of $5,292.71 (including GST) in respect of SLS.

Gwyn J

4      Mainzeal Property and Construction Ltd (in liq) v Yan [2019] NZHC 1637 at [104].

5      Jade Residential Ltd v Paul [2022] NZDC 14430 at [30].