14 Dec 2022
R 14.15 did not apply because the Crown and the Ngāi Tahu parties could not reasonably have joined in a single defence and, even if they could have, there were good pragmatic and principled reasons to allow separate representation; accordingly two separate sets of costs were awarded to the respondents.
4 Sept 2020
S 274 parties occupy a sui generis position: while the ordinary High Court costs regime and r14.15 apply, the statutory policy permitting s 274 participation and the limited threshold to join mean a successful s 274 party can recover costs where appropriate; the court must balance level of success, actual assistance to the Court, and RMA policy. Applying that approach, the appellant was ordered to pay the s 274 party reduced costs of $8,000 (about two‑thirds of claimed 2B scale).
31 Oct 2019
The court held that both respondents were entitled to costs following the event but, applying r 14.15 and recognising overlapping submissions, apportioned costs so that written submissions costs for the stay application and appeal were shared between respondents while each respondent received costs for appearances; this produced reduced awards to reflect overlap.
24 Jun 2016
Applicants/plaintiffs were ordered to pay costs on a 2B basis to the first and second respondents/defendants. The court allowed full Item 24 (submissions) and Item 26 (appearance) for each separately represented respondent because separate representation was justified; allowed Item 25 (bundle preparation) only for the second respondents (who prepared the bundle); reduced the first respondent's copying/binding disbursement to $500 due to lack of supporting invoices; allowed the travel and accommodation disbursements for counsel based in Queenstown as reasonably incurred; and fixed total amount…
7 May 2014
The court found good reason to award separate costs to each defendant for filing notices of opposition and attending conferences (items 12 and 13) on a 2B basis because those attendances legitimately involved separate representation, but declined to allow separate awards for preparation and delivery of hearing submissions (items 24 and 26) because the defendants cooperated and divided their presentations and could reasonably have had one counsel present all submissions; accordingly one set of costs was allowed for those hearing items (item 24 on a 2C basis and item 26 on a 2B basis). Disburse…
1 May 2009
Applying r 14.15, the court found a sufficient distinction in the fourth defendant's role and potential need to distinguish his contribution under s 301 to justify a separate costs award; accordingly separate costs were ordered but limited to the actual costs reasonably incurred with specified reductions under Schedule 3, and the application for costs of the costs hearing was refused.