Woodroffe v Muaiava - [2024] NZHC 282

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-001421

[2024] NZHC 282

BETWEEN
LEULUAIALI’I OLINDA WOODROFFE

Plaintiff

AND

TAFUNA’I MUAIAVA

First Defendant

FA’AMANU PENIATA
Second Defendant

SEU PENIATA
Third Defendant

Cont’d

On the papers

Counsel:
G M Illingworth KC for Plaintiff

S A Keall and M G Orange for Defendants

Judgment:

10 April 2024

JUDGMENT OF ANDERSON J

(Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 April 2024 at 3.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

.…………………………..
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Woodroffe Lawyers, Auckland
Fortune Manning, Auckland

WOODROFFE v MUAIAVA [2024] NZHC 282 [10 April 2024]

TAELA MUAVAE MIKA
Fourth Defendant

GALUMALEMANA VENI MORISA
Fifth Defendant

CIV-2023-404-002098

BETWEEN
LEULUAIALI’I O WOODROFFE

Plaintiff

AND

CHRIS MUAIAVA

Defendant

Introduction

[1] In a minute dated 23 February 2024, I ordered that the plaintiff, Mrs Woodroffe, was entitled to wasted costs after the defendants withdrew their applications for summary judgment and variously recast interlocutory applications, in addition to having made various timetable breaches.1

[2]This judgment concerns the quantum of the wasted costs award.

The facts

[3] These proceedings relate to the Samoan Assemblies of God in New Zealand (the Fellowship). The plaintiff maintains she was defamed by the defendants who are in or involved with the Fellowship’s executive body. The plaintiff is a lawyer. She previously acted for the Fellowship.

[4] The plaintiff filed two related defamation proceedings on 21 June 2023 (the 1421 proceeding) and 12 September 2023 (the 2098 proceeding). The defendants subsequently applied to strike out / for summary judgment in both proceedings. A hearing was timetabled for 22 February 2024.

[5] The defendants intimated that the application in the 2098 proceeding would be filed on 6 November 2023. It was in fact filed on 2 February 2024, the same day the defendants filed an amended application to strike out / for summary judgment in the 1421 proceeding incorporating an application for leave to amend.

[6] On 22 February 2024, the defendants sought to proceed with the applications apart from the summary judgment aspect in both proceedings. The plaintiff maintained that there would be serious prejudice if the hearing proceeded. Moreover, the plaintiff submitted that the Court should not allow the applications to proceed at all on the basis that it would cause undue delay and that the timetable breaches were neither adequately explained nor justified. Defamation proceedings should be dealt with promptly.

1 Woodroffe v Muaiava HC Auckland CIV-2023-404-1421, CIV-2023-404-2098, 23 February 2024 (Minute of Anderson J), at [23]–[25].

[7] I adjourned the hearing. If the defendants were permitted to proceed with the 2 February 2024 applications as scheduled, which had a significantly altered focus to the October 2023 application, it would prejudice the plaintiff.

[8] I granted leave for the defendants to file an amended application in the 1421 proceeding and I allowed the application filed in the 2098 proceeding to be pursued. It was not in the interests of justice to foreclose the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Woodroffe v Muaiava and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZHC 282
Decision Date: 10 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Woodroffe v Muaiava was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The plaintiff, Leuluaiali'i Olinda Woodroffe, sought wasted costs following the defendants' withdrawal of their applications for summary judgment and their recast interlocutory applications, which also included various timetable breaches. The defendants, Tafuna'i Muaiava, Fa'amanu Peniata, Seu Peniata, and others, contested the quantum of the wasted costs award. The primary legal issue was the determination of the appropriate amount of wasted costs to be awarded to the plaintiff due to the defendants' procedural missteps.

The Court considered the principles of awarding wasted costs, which are discretionary and should be granted where the fault of one party leads to the detriment of another. The Court noted that while costs are not usually awarded on the dismissal of a summary judgment application, in this case, the procedural defects and timetable breaches warranted such an award. The Court also acknowledged that the work done in preparing for the interlocutory hearing would have some continuing value for the adjourned hearing in August, and thus a global deduction was appropriate.

In its judgment, the Court found that the proceedings were not of such elevated complexity as to warrant a category 3 classification for daily costs. Instead, category 2 costs were more appropriate. The Court also determined that the plaintiff was entitled to costs for the preparation of notices of opposition and submissions, despite the defendants' argument that this work would have future relevance. However, the Court decided against awarding additional costs for the lateness of the applications, and it reduced the overall award by 25% to account for the continuing value of the work done.

The Court awarded the plaintiff wasted costs in the sum of $6,630. This amount reflected the costs incurred due to the defendants' procedural missteps while considering the partial continuing value of the plaintiff's work for future proceedings.

Orders