REID V TARARUA DISTRICT COUNCIL CA CA452/2009

REID V TARARUA DISTRICT COUNCIL CA CA452/2009 8 September 2010IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA452/2009 [2010] NZCA 406BETWEEN JAMES ROBERT REID Appellant AND TARARUA DISTRICT COUNCIL First Respondent AND PALMERSTON NORTH HIGH COURT Second RespondentCA799/2009AND BETWEEN JAMES ROBERT REID Appellant AND TARARUA DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Glazebrook, Randerson and Stevens JJ Counsel: Appellant in person D J Neutze for Respondents Judgment: 8 September 2010 at 9.30 a.m.COSTS JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe appellant is to pay costs to the respondent as follows: (a) in respect of CA452/2009 the sum of $3,750.00 for costs and $475.00 for disbursements (all inclusive of GST if any); and(b) in respect of CA799/2009 the sum of $3,750.00 for costs and $475.00 for disbursements (all inclusive of GST if any).___________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Randerson J) [1] In our judgment issued on 27 July 2010 we struck out these appeals and ordered that the respondent Council was entitled to indemnity costs and disbursements against the appellant. [2] We directed that the Council file a memorandum as to the quantum of costs within seven days of the date of delivery of the decision and we allowed the appellant seven days thereafter to respond. The Council has filed a memorandum but no memorandum in response has been received from Mr Reid. [3] The Council claims costs and disbursements (inclusive of GST) of $12,274.38 in the appeal CA452/2009 and $4,913.55 in the appeal CA799/2009. [4] We are not persuaded that costs at these levels are justified. An award of indemnity costs is subject to a test of reasonableness.1 Essentially, the Council was required to prepare and file an application to strike out and was supported by an affidavit in each case. In addition, there would have been the cost of preparing for and appearing by video link for a brief hearing in the Miscellaneous Motions list in which both matters were dealt with in one hearing. The issues were not complex. There must have been considerable overlap in the work undertaken for each application. [5] In the circumstances, we consider that no more than a total of $7,500.00 plus disbursements of $800.00 for filing fees and a round figure of $150.00 for photocopying is appropriate overall. These sums are to be treated as inclusive of GST (if any). These sums are to be divided equally between each appeal.1 Bradbury v Westpac Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corporation [2009] NZCA 234, [2009] 3 NZLR 400 at [88].[6] Accordingly, the appellant Mr Reid is to pay to the Tararua District Council: (a) in respect of CA452/2009 the sum of $3,750.00 for costs and $475.00 for disbursements (all inclusive of GST if any); and (b) in respect of CA799/2009 the sum of $3,750.00 for costs and $475.00 for disbursements (all inclusive of GST if any).Solicitors: Brookfields, Auckland, for Respondents