PNL ALLIANCE LTD v GLENVIEW HOLIDAY PARK LTD (costs) [2021] NZHC 3241

PNL ALLIANCE LTD v GLENVIEW HOLIDAY PARK LTD (costs) [2021] NZHC 3241 [30 November 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2021-404-974[2021] NZHC 3241BETWEEN PNL ALLIANCE LIMITEDApplicantAND GLENVIEW HOLIDAY PARK LIMITEDRespondentHearing: On the papersCounsel: KA Badcock for the ApplicantNo memorandum for the RespondentJudgment: 30 November 2021COSTS JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SUSSOCKThis judgment was delivered by me on 30 November 2021 at 3pmpursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors/Counsel:Badcock Law, RotoruaGregory Simon Law, AucklandC Murphy, Barrister, AucklandIntroduction[1] The applicant succeeded in its application that Caveat 12090209.1 over 22Sloss Road, Tokoroa, not lapse. My preliminary view was that the applicant wasentitled to costs. I asked the parties to confer and attempt to agree costs betweenthemselves but file memoranda if agreement could not be reached. A timetable wasdirected for the filing of the memoranda.[2] Costs have not been able to be agreed and so a memorandum has been filed onbehalf of the applicant. Costs are sought on a 2B basis of $11,352.50 together withdisbursements of $1,107.48.[3] No memorandum has been filed in response by the respondent, GlenviewHoliday Park Limited. Any memorandum on behalf of the respondent is nowsignificantly outside the timetable directed. I therefore determine costs in the absenceof any submissions from the respondent.Discussion[4] The memorandum filed on behalf of the applicant includes a schedule settingout the items claimed from Schedule 3 of the High Court Rules 2016 together withindividual disbursements.[5] The items claimed appear uncontroversial, except for item 41, the preparationof the bundle, as the bundle of documents was prepared by the respondent. Counselfor the applicant recognises in the memorandum filed that this item may be disputedby the respondent but submits that it is appropriately claimed because the respondentprepared the bundle of documents voluntarily, the applicant prepared a bundle ofauthorities and a bundle of documents was not necessary in the circumstances of thiscase given the small number of documents for inclusion.[6] Item 41 of Schedule 3 is described as "Preparation by applicant of bundle forhearing" and allows for 0.6 of a day. There is no reference to whether it is the bundleof documents or authorities. Ordinarily, the applicant prepares a bundle of documentsand bundle of authorities with the respondent providing copies of any additionalauthorities.[7] In the circumstances I consider that is it appropriate for half of this item to beawarded to the applicant, as the bundle of documents and bundle of authorities are asimilar size. The applicant has therefore completed half of the task that item 41 allowsfor. The fact that the respondent prepared the bundle of documents voluntarily doesnot detract from the fact that the bundle of documents was still prepared by therespondent.[8] I therefore reduce the costs claimed by 0.3 of a day so that the total timeallocation is 4.45 days at a daily rate of $2,390 for a total of $10,635.50.[9] The disbursements claimed of $1,107.48 appear appropriate, with copies of theinvoices for the disbursements attached to the costs memorandum. The claiming ofmileage and accommodation in Auckland for the hearing is justified where theapplicant is based in Tokoroa and the caveat was lodged against a property there.Result[10] For the reasons set out above, I award costs to the applicant, PNL AllianceLimited, of $10,635.50 plus disbursements of $1,107.48 for a total payable by therespondent, Glenview Holiday Park Limited, of $11,742.98.______________________________Associate Judge Sussock