Codylan Farms Limited v Northern Farm Services Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CIV-2013-043-262 [2015] NZHC 2584

BETWEEN
CODYLAN FARMS LIMITED

First Plaintiff

VERO INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

AND

NORTHERN FARM SERVICES LIMITED

Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

A W M Britton for First and Second Plaintiffs
P J Napier and N J Pye for Defendant

Judgment:

20 October 2015

COSTS JUDGMENT OF M PETERS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice M Peters on 20 October 2015 at 4 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date: ...................................

Solicitors: C & M Legal, New Plymouth
Keegan Alexander, Auckland

CODYLAN FARMS LTD v NORTHERN FARM SERVICES LTD [2015] NZHC 2584 [20 October 2015]

[1] I have considered the parties’ memoranda of 21 and 28 August and 5 October

2015.

Interest on counterclaim debt

[2] I am unable to determine the issues now raised by the First Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) as to interest on the counterclaim. I am functus officio in respect of the matter.

First Plaintiff ’s costs and disbursements

[3] I have considered the parties’ memoranda on the matter in dispute, namely the claim in respect of step 34 and the disbursement in respect of hearing time. I allow those items as if for a four day trial.

Costs on District Court or High Court scale

[4] The Plaintiffs submit that I should allow the Defendant’s costs only in the sum that would be payable under the District Court Rules. I do not accept this submission. The nature of the issues in the proceeding were sufficient to warrant a hearing in the High Court and it was not unreasonable for the Defendant to seek a transfer as it did.

Defendant’s costs and disbursements on Second Plaintiff ’s claim

[5] As I understand it, the Second Plaintiff does not object to the costs and disbursements that the Defendant seeks on its defence of the Second Plaintiff’s claim and I award those costs, as shown on Schedule D to the Defendant’s memorandum of
28 August 2015.

Defendant’s costs and disbursements in respect of counterclaim

[6] The First Plaintiff contends that the Defendant should not have costs and disbursements beyond filing its counterclaim because thereafter the Defendant knew the First Plaintiff did not dispute the counterclaim and it was open to the Defendant to seek to seal judgment (see High Court Rules, r 15.7). Had the Defendant done so, it could not have claimed costs/disbursements in respect of subsequent steps.

[7] As a matter of principle I think that must be correct, whether by reference to

High Court Rules, r 14.7(f)(ii) or 14.7(g).

[8] Accordingly, in respect of the counterclaim, I allow the Defendant costs in respect of step 4 and the filing fee payable on the counterclaim, both as shown on Schedule C to its memorandum of 28 August 2015.

..................................................................

M Peters J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Codylan Farms Limited and Vero Insurance New Zealand Limited (collectively referred to as the Plaintiffs) commenced proceedings against Northern Farm Services Limited (the Defendant) in the High Court of New Zealand. The case, Codylan Farms Limited v Northern Farm Services Limited, involved a dispute over costs and disbursements following a counterclaim made by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs. The case was heard on the papers, with written submissions from both parties. The judgment, delivered by Justice Peters on 20 October 2015, addressed the Plaintiffs' claims for certain costs and disbursements, and the Defendant's counterclaim for costs and disbursements related to the defence of the Plaintiffs' claims and its own counterclaim.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to certain costs and disbursements related to their claims, and whether the Defendant was entitled to costs and disbursements for defending the Plaintiffs' claims and its own counterclaim. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Defendant was entitled to costs and disbursements beyond the filing of its counterclaim, and whether the Plaintiffs' costs should be assessed on the District Court or High Court scale.

Justice Peters found that the court was functus officio and could not determine the issues regarding interest on the counterclaim. Concerning the costs and disbursements claimed by the Plaintiffs, the court allowed those items as if for a four day trial. The court rejected the Plaintiffs' submission that the Defendant's costs should be assessed on the District Court scale, holding that the nature of the issues warranted a hearing in the High Court. The court also awarded the Defendant costs and disbursements in respect of the Second Plaintiff’s claim and the counterclaim, subject to certain limitations.

In summary, the court allowed the Plaintiffs some of their claimed costs and disbursements but not others, and determined that the Defendant was entitled to certain costs and disbursements in relation to the defence of the Plaintiffs' claims and its own counterclaim. The court's decision clarified the principles governing the assessment of costs in such circumstances, particularly in relation to the Defendant's entitlement to costs and disbursements beyond the filing of its counterclaim.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	A W M Britton for First and Second Plaintiffs P J Napier and N J Pye for Defendant
Judgment:	20 October 2015