MONEYWORLD NEW ZEALAND 2000 LTD V KVB KUNLUN NEW ZEALAND LTD HC AK CIV-2003-404-2542

MONEYWORLD NEW ZEALAND 2000 LTD V KVB KUNLUN NEW ZEALAND LTD HC AK CIV-2003- 404-2542 23 February 2006IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2003-404-2542BETWEEN MONEYWORLD NEW ZEALAND 2000 LTD Plaintiff AND KVB KUNLUN NEW ZEALAND LTD Defendant AND RESERVE BANK OF FIJI Third Party Judgment: 23 February 2006JUDGMENT OF HARRISON J_________________________________________________________________________________ SOLICITORS Grove Darlow & Partners (Auckland) for Plaintiff Wilson Harle (Auckland) for Defendant Russell McVeagh (Wellington) for Third Party[1] In a decision delivered on 23 September 2005 following a disputed hearing on entitlement to costs, Laurenson J made these orders:[68] There will be orders as follows: [a] An order against MWNZ in favour of both KVB and RBF for costs calculated on: [i] the 2B formula up to and including 15 December 2004; and [ii] thereafter on the basis of the actual costs reasonably incurred by KVB and RBF pursuant to R48C. [b] Orders that both KVB and RBF are further entitled to costs against MWNZ for disbursements and witnesses' expenses to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. [c] Judgment will not be entered against KVB in favour of RBF. [d] If the parties are unable to agree on the costs referred to in (a)(iii) above, then the parties are to file memoranda within two weeks from the date of this decision addressed to the Civil List Judge for further direction by him pursuant to R48F.[2] On 30 September 2005 the Judge retired. Unfortunately the parties were unable to reach agreement on costs in the terms envisaged by Laurenson J. In early October counsel filed memoranda. Unfortunately they were overlooked until the registry located the file today. In view of the Judge's unavailability, I have jurisdiction to determine the outstanding costs issue (R48F High Court Rules). [3] It seems the only question for determination by me is whether the actual costs claimed by KVB and RBF were reasonably incurred. There can be no question that the costs calculated according to category 2B up to 15 December 2004 are accurate – namely, $17,545 for KVB and $9715 for RBF. [4] KVB claims actual costs of $126,807.30 plus disbursements of $924.05; RBF claims actual costs of $97,200.61 together with fees incurred by a law firm in Suva, Fiji of F$31,436.06 (no conversion has been provided).[5] Mr Phillip Rice, MWNZ's counsel, filed a memorandum in opposition dated 14 October 2005. He takes issue with the reasonableness of those costs and the claim by both defendants for second counsel. [6] Having reviewed the material, I am satisfied that both sets of costs were reasonably incurred. KVB's claim for costs incurred on a partner's hourly charge out rate of $450 to 31 March 2005 and $500 thereafter seems high. I assume that RBF's claim is fixed on a similar basis. I am not in a position, though, to say that these rates are unreasonable, and indeed Mr Rice did not suggest they were. [7] I am also satisfied that both defendants are entitled to claim costs for second counsel during the trial. [8] However, I decline RBF's claim for solicitors costs in Fiji. They are in the nature of disbursements. I cannot identify a basis upon which they are properly claimable. [9] Accordingly, I enter judgment for: (1) KVB against MWNZ for $145,276.35; (2) RBF against MWNZ for $106,915.61. ______________________________________ Rhys Harrison J