WILSON v WHITIANGA MARINA SOCIETY INCORPORATED [2019] NZHC 2583
Rule 14.8(1) mandates determination of costs on interlocutory applications when the application is decided; no special reasons existed to reserve costs here, and the defendant’s claimed items complied with the scale except for the 'Filing affidavits in support' item which was disallowed; accordingly costs were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] NZHC 2583
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Frederick Scott Wilson; Defendant: Whitianga Marina Society Incorporated
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 11 October 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction / Costs Determination Following Refusal of Interim Injunction
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to defendant on 2B scale, except the item 'Filing affidavits in support' was disallowed
- Legal Topics
- Interim Injunction, Costs on Interlocutory Application, Scale of Costs, Departure From Scale
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Frederick Scott Wilson
Plaintiff
Whitianga Marina Society Incorporated
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction / Costs Determination Following Refusal of Interim Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether costs should be determined now for an interlocutory application or reserved to final determination
- 2 Whether the defendant’s claimed costs conform to the High Court scale and whether any departures are justified
Ratio Decidendi
Rule 14.8(1) mandates determination of costs on interlocutory applications when the application is decided; no special reasons existed to reserve costs here, and the defendant’s claimed items complied with the scale except for the 'Filing affidavits in support' item which was disallowed; accordingly costs were awarded to the defendant on the 2B scale less that disallowed item.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to defendant on 2B scale, except the item 'Filing affidavits in support' was disallowed
Orders
- Defendant Whitianga Marina Society Incorporated is awarded costs on the Category 2B scale in accordance with the submitted table except that the item 'Filing affidavits in support' (1 day, $2,390) is disallowed.
- Total awarded to defendant: $6,204.50 (being $8,594.50 less $2,390 disallowed).
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
WILSON v WHITIANGA MARINA SOCIETY INCORPORATED [2019] NZHC 2583 [11 October 2019]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDHAMILTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAKIRIKIRIROA ROHECIV-2019-419-000224[2019] NZHC 2583BETWEEN FREDERICK SCOTT WILSONPlaintiffAND WHITIANGA MARINA SOCIETYINCORPORATEDDefendantHearing: On the papersJudgment: 11 October 2019JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J(Costs)This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 11 October 2019 at 1 pmpursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors/Counsel:Skeates Law Ltd, Auckland.Harkness Henry, Hamilton.GA Keene, Auckland.[1] On 29 August 2019, I declined to grant Mr Frederick Wilson an interiminjunction. The defendant, Whitianga Marina Society Incorporated, seeks 2B costs.Mr Wilson resists costs.[2] Mr Wilson argues costs should not be awarded now. Rather, these should awaitdetermination of his substantive claim. Mr Wilson contends he may yet succeed. Hehighlights "some genuine questions" about the fairness of his treatment by thedefendant.[3] Rule 14.8(1) of the High Court Rules 2016 requires a Judge to determine thecosts of an interlocutory application—like this—when she or he determines theapplication. The Judge may do otherwise only if there are "special reasons to thecontrary".[4] No special reasons exist. That Mr Wilson believes "some genuine questions"exist about the fairness of his treatment is not a special reason for addressing costslater. Many plaintiffs believe they have been unfairly treated by defendants.Moreover, if Mr Wilson succeeds in his substantive claim, he will almost certainlyreceive costs—then.[5] Mr Wilson also contests the amount of costs. These are:Description Numberof daysAmount (at dailyrate of $2,390)Appearance at first call on28 August 20190.2 $478.00Filing opposition to interlocutoryapplication0.6 $1,434.00Filing affidavits in support 1 $2,390.00Preparation of writtensubmissions1.5 $3,585.00Appearance for hearing forprincipal counsel0.25 $597.50Subtotal $8,484.50DisbursementsFiling fee for notice of opposition $110.00Total $8,594.50[6] Mr Wilson submits the cost for preparing written submissions should be 0.75of a day; not 1.5 days, as the written submissions were not extensive. The answer tothis submission is that 1.5 days is in accordance with the schedule, and the scheduleexists to avoid this sort of argument. Put another way, departures from scale areexceptional. There is no reason to depart scale here, particularly when the defendanthad to prepare submissions under significant pressure of time.[7] Mr Wilson also argues the defendant should not have a day for preparing itsaffidavits. Mr Wilson observes this step is not provided for by the schedule. Thedefendant accepts as much, but argues this step was reasonable in the circumstances.Again, departures from scale are exceptional. There is no reason to depart scale inrelation to this aspect.[8] So, the defendant has costs in terms of the table except for "Filing affidavits insupport"...Downs J