LAUREN V ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY HC TIM CIV 2011-476-000507

LAUREN V ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY HC TIM CIV 2011-476-000507 [16 May 2012]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDTIMARU REGISTRYCIV 2011-476-000507[2012] NZHC 962BETWEEN ANTHONY JAMES LAURENApplicantAND ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OF MINISTRY OFAGRICULTURE AND FORESTRYRespondentHearing: (On Papers)Counsel: K B Campbell for ApplicantP McCarthy and N Willcocks for RespondentJudgment: 16 May 2012COSTS JUDGMENT OF WHATA J[1] Curiously, I have an application for costs on this matter by both parties. As will be well known to the parties, costs ordinarily follow the event. I see no reason to depart from that basic principle in this case. I therefore do not accept therespondent's submissions that it is prima facie entitled to an award of costs in thesum of $11,324.80. The respondent elected to defend the plaintiff's position in toto including an application for declaratory relief (though I accept that the precise nature of that relief emerged through and indeed after the hearing). The critical issue is how much the applicant should get, given that he was not successful on the balance of the relief sought.[2] The applicant has calculated his costs on a 2B basis and claims costs in accordance with an attached schedule in the amount of $10,528 plus the disbursements amounting to $1,812.29. The overall total cost is $12,340.29.[3] The applicant further accepts that given that the Crown was successful on an interlocutory application, the Crown is entitled to costs in the sum of $2,820. I do not understand there to be any direct challenge to this calculation.[4] The respondent in its claim proceeded on the basis that the costs should fall in the A category, not the B category. On that aspect I disagree with the respondent. I consider that B category better reflects the time required for a matter such as this. A 2B categorisation is therefore appropriate.[5] In those circumstances I commence with a starting point of costs in favour of the applicant of $10,528. That figure should be discounted by two-thirds, to reflect the fact that the applicant only had partial success, but also to acknowledge that the respondent, quite properly, conceded the validity point. The Crown's costs on the interlocutory application of $2,820 must also be deducted. This results in a figure of $689.34. For clarity, this exercise is replicated in tabular form as follows:Starting point of costs 10,528.00 Less: Two-thirds discount -7,018.66 _________ 3,509.34Less: Crown's cost on interlocutory -2,820.00 ________ 689.34 Plus: Disbursements 1,812.29________ $2,501.63 =======[6] Accordingly, there shall be costs in favour of the applicant in the sum of $689.34 plus disbursements of $1,812.29 totalling $2,501.63.Solicitors:Deane & Associates, P O Box 242, Oamaru (kelvinc@deanelaw.co.nz)Crown Law, Wellington, for Respondent (peter.mccarthy@crownlaw.govt.nz)Copy to:N Willcocks (nyssa@gressons.co.nz)