TNL International Limited v Bullocks Freightmasters International Proprietary Company Limited

[2025] NZHC 2321

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-002922

[2025] NZHC 2321

BETWEEN

TNL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

BULLOCKS FREIGHTMASTERS INTERNATIONAL PROPRIETARY COMPANY LIMITED

Defendant

MOVE LOGISTICS AND WAREHOUSING LIMITED

Third Party

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

T Ashley for the Plaintiff C Langstone for Defendant

J Pietras for the Third Party

Judgment:

15 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 August 2025 at 12 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Oceanlaw New Zealand, Auckland Fee Langstone, Auckland

Duncan Cotterill, Auckland

TNL INTERNATIONAL LTD v BULLOCKS [2025] NZHC 2321 [15 August 2025]

[1]                 This judgment determines costs after the decline of the defendant’s application to set aside settlement privilege.

[2]                 As the unsuccessful party/applicant, the defendant is to pay costs on a 2B basis and reasonable disbursements.

[3]Two issues arise:

(a)Whether the third party is entitled to travel disbursements for counsel.

(b)Whether the plaintiff should also be awarded costs given its limited role at the hearing.

[4]                 On the first issue, I am not satisfied that it is appropriate to award disbursements which include airfares and accommodation and travel to and from the airport. Counsel for the third party did not seek leave to appear by VMR, merely proposed to the parties that all counsel seek a VMR hearing. Plaintiff’s counsel did appear by VMR with leave. In those circumstances, I decline to award travel disbursements.

[5]                 Apart from that, the third party’s costs schedule appears to be in order. I therefore award costs and disbursements of $6,357 in favour of the third party.

[6]                 As to the second issue, the plaintiff had a legitimate interest in the application. It filed an affidavit and memorandum of counsel in lieu of a notice of opposition and was named as a respondent to the application.

[7]                 It is appropriate that there be an award of costs in its favour. The costs claim of $2,629 is modest and reasonable.

[8]                 I make a costs order against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $2,629.

[9]                 Finally, I note that the various costs memoranda were filed in the Registry many months ago. Because of work pressures in the Registry, they were not brought

to my attention until a few weeks ago. I apologise to counsel and the parties for that delay.

............................................................

Walker J