Turner and Waverley Limited v Stanning HC Auckland

Case

[2011] NZHC 1866

13 December 2011

No judgment structure available for this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2010-404-2268

BETWEEN  TURNER AND WAVERLEY LIMITED Plaintiff

ANDANDREW DEREK STANNING AND PETER GORDON LEVER

Defendants

CIV-2010-404-2272

AND BETWEEN            TURNER AND WAVERLEY LIMITED Plaintiff

ANDNESAU PTY LIMITED Defendant

CIV-2010-404-2292

AND BETWEEN            TURNER AND WAVERLEY LIMITED Plaintiff

ANDNORTHSTAR ACCOUNTS PTY LIMITED

First Defendant

ANDANDREW DEREK STANNING AND PETER GORDON LEVER

Second Defendants

CIV-2010-404-2294

AND BETWEEN            TURNER AND WAVERLEY LIMITED Plaintiff

ANDZENN PTY LIMITED Defendant

CIV-2010-404-2181

TURNER AND WAVERLEY LIMITED V STANNING AND LEVER HC AK CIV-2010-404-2268 13

December 2011

ANDROBERT ERNEST WEBBER AND DEBORAH JANE WEBER

First Defendants

ANDKERRIE ANNE SCHOOTS AND PIETER LAUURENCE SCHOOTS

Second Defendants

ANDDONALD MCMICHAEL AND RENEE LE GRANDE

Third Defendants

ANDWILLIAM STAPLES AND LYNETTE JONES, TONY PETER AND WENDY PETER

Fourth Defendants

CIV-2010-404-2256

AND BETWEEN            TURNER AND WAVERLEY LIMITED Plaintiff

ANDKEN EDMONDS, SUE EDMONDS AND MARK EDMONDS

First Defendants

ANDSCOMARG INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED

Second Defendants

ANDTRIED HARD PTY LIMITED Third Defendant

ANDBRETT SHEATHER, MARC WILSON AND ROBIN WALKER

Fourth Defendants

ANDSCOTT WILIAM EDMONDS AND MARGARET ALISON EDMONDS Fifth Defendants

CIV-2010-404-4372

ANDBRUCE GORDON AND CHRISTINE GORDON

Defendants

Hearing:         7 December 2011

Appearances: G P Blanchard for Plaintiff

S H Barter for Defendants

Judgment:      13 December 2011 at 11:00 AM

COSTS JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE BELL

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 December 2011 at 11:00am

pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

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

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

CMS Legal (C Smith), Auckland – Email  [email protected] Phillips Legal, Auckland – Email  [email protected] Barter & Co., Auckland – Email  [email protected]

W McCartney, Auckland – Email  [email protected]

G Blanchard, Auckland – Email  [email protected]

Copy for:

[email protected]

[1]      This is a costs decision on the application by Turner & Waverley Ltd to set

aside the defendants’ appearances under r 5.49(5) of the High Court Rules.

[2]      In my decision of 23 December 2010, I set aside the defendants’ protests to jurisdiction.  I ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff’s costs on a 2B scale, with disbursements to be approved by the Registrar.  The parties have not been able to agree  on  costs  and  have  filed  memoranda.     There  have  been  delays  in  the memoranda being referred to me for decision.

[3]      The applications in CIV-2010-404-2248, 2272, 2292 and 2294 were heard on

26 August 2010.  The applications in CIV-2010-404-2256 and 2181 were heard on

20 September 2010.  As the proceedings fall into two groups, which were processed separately (although they were the subject of one decision), that makes it convenient to allocate costs according to each group.   The circumstances of the case do not make it suitable for a hindsight judgment that the cases might otherwise have been organised so that duplication could have been avoided.

Costs for applications heard on 26 August 2011

[4]      For these cases I fix costs as follows:

Step                   Description            Allocated Day              Amount

4.10           Memorandum     for case management conference

4.11            Appearance at  case management conference

4.12            Preparing and filing interlocutory applications

4.14            Preparation        for hearing

4.15            Appearance         at hearing

.4 day  $752

.3 day  $564

1.5 days                   $2820

1 day  $1880

1 day  $1880

4.2 days  $7896

[5]      I  have  applied  1.5  days  for  preparation  and  filing  the  interlocutory applications on the basis that the time allowed for one application would be .6 of a day, and I have allowed an additional .3 of a day for each further application.

[6]      I  also  award  the  plaintiff  disbursements  being  the  filing  fees  on  each application - $2400.

Costs for applications heard on 20 September 2010

[7]      I fix costs as follows:

Step  Description               Allocated Day                 Amount

4.10             Memorandum     for case management conference

.4  $752

4.11               Appearance   at   case management conference

.3  $564

4.12               Preparation and filing interlocutory applications

.6  $1128

4.14               Preparation          for hearing

1 day  $1880

4.15               Appearance           at hearing

1day  $1880

3.3 days  $6204

[8]      There were two applications filed, but I have applied .6 as being .3 for each application,  the  core  work  having  been  done  for  the  first  application  heard  on

26 September 2010.

[9]      I award disbursements on the two applications for the filing fees, totalling

$1200.

[10]     In summary, for the applications heard on 26 August 2010, those defendants are to pay the plaintiff costs of $7896 and disbursements of $2400.

[11]     For the applications heard on 20 September 2010 those defendants are to pay the plaintiff costs of $6204 and disbursements of $1200.

Security for costs application

[12]     The parties’ memoranda have also addressed security for costs.   There is agreement that the plaintiff should provide security for costs and that payment of security should be staged.  This part of the decision applies to all the proceedings, including that against the Gordons (CIV 2010-404-4372).

[13]     For staging, the parties have divided the work done on the cases between work done up until now (excluding the arguments as to the protests to jurisdiction) and the work from now on in preparation for trial and hearing.   That division is convenient.

[14]     Both  parties  put  forward  calculations  as  to  likely  costs,  but  they  differ, especially on time allowances for particular steps.  There is complexity here, because of the numbers of defendants.   Inevitably there will be elements within each defendant’s case which are individual to that case and other aspects that are common to all defendants.   It is not possible to establish exactly how much work will be common to all cases and how much will be individual to a particular case.   For a security for costs application, precision is not required.

[15]     For Stage 1, for work carried out to date, I allow $100,000 for costs awarded to the defendants.  That is about 53 days at the Category 2 rate.  I fix security for that as $67,000, applying a discount.   From that I deduct the sum of $13,750 (already been paid by way of security for costs), leaving a balance for security of $53,250.

[16]     The security for costs is to be provided by 16 March 2012.  If it is not paid by then, all the plaintiff’s proceedings the subject of this minute will be stayed.   If payment is not made by the end of March 2012, the defendants may apply to have

the plaintiffs’ claims struck out. Any such application should be referred to me in the first instance so that I can give directions for that application to be heard at short notice.

[17]     For stage 2, costs are likely to be in the order of $130,000 allowing 70 days:

40 days for preparation, 20 days for the hearing and 10 days for second counsel.  In addition there will be the likely costs of an expert witness on Australian law of

$30,000,  likely costs  of  travel  and  accommodation  for defendants  coming from Australia  and  further  disbursements  of  $12,000  giving  a  total  of  $172,000.    I discount that to $115,000.  The security of $115,000 is to be paid into court by the end of May 2012.   If the security is not provided by that date, the proceeding is stayed.   If the security for costs is not paid by 15 June 2012, the defendants may apply for an order striking out the proceeding.  They will not require leave to make that application.  The application should be referred to me in the first instance with a request for a telephone conference so that I may give directions for the application to be heard.

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

Associate Judge R M Bell

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

1