TAUA,v TAHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2861

TAUA,v TAHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2861 [5 November 2019]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV 2019-404-1589[2019] NZHC 2861BETWEEN TE WARENA TAUA, GEORGE HORIWINIKEREI TAUA, NGARAMAWALKER and MIRIAMA TAMAARIKI astrustees of the Te Kawerau Iwi TribalAuthorityPlaintiffsAND TAHI ENTERPRISES LIMITEDFirst defendantDIANNE LEESecond defendantTAO (MARTIN) LIThird defendantHearing: On the papersCounsel: K J Crossland for the plaintiffsM Heard and C Upton for the defendantsJudgment: 5 November 2019JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J[Costs]The judgment was delivered by me on 5 November 2019 at 3.00pm.Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors/Counsel:Shieff Angland, AucklandLeeSalmonLong, Auckland[1] My 29 August 2019 minute explained the parties reached an interimaccommodation, pending the Court of Appeal's March 2020 hearing of relatedproceedings between them. The parties would similarly have accommodated vacationof the fixture before me for an interlocutory injunction, but failed to explain the scopeof adjournment sought, with the result the civil list judge maintained the fixture, withthat consensual result.[2] At both parties' request, I reserved the issue of costs. I regret the delay inresponding to the parties' timely engagement on costs. Their memoranda only wereput before me for decision this week.[3] The defendants now seek 2B costs in the amount of $5,377.50, essentially onthe basis their expenses in preparation for and attendance at the hearing were wasted.Expressed in that way (and not as a (presently, unjustified) claim for indemnity costs)1,the claim relies entirely on my discretion,2 as the defendants do not claim benefit ofany principle for determination of costs,3 and "increased costs" spring from suchprincipled determination.4 Thus the claim is just for the plaintiffs' contribution to thedefendants' expenses. Implicit in the defendants' claim is any wastage is attributableto the plaintiffs' failure, here to express to the civil list judge the "cogent" and'efficient' reasons for the proposed adjournment. But the request for adjournment wasjoint; both parties bear responsibility for any shortfall in its expression.[4] I see no reason to exercise my discretion in favour of a determination of costsnow. The application remains for determination; only appearance time may be wasted;and either party ultimately may be successful. My minute recorded my determinationmay include costs' further reservation, which is my decision.[5] Costs are reserved.—Jagose J1 HCR 14.6(4).2 HCR 14.1.3 HCR 14.2.4 HCR14.6(1).