Davis v Hogg

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2024-412-110

[2025] NZHC 2105

UNDER the Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

ARTEMIS INDIGO DELILAH DAVIS

Applicant

AND

EMMA JULIE HOGG

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

Applicant in person

J W Cowan for Respondent

Judgment:

30 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN (COSTS)

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 July 2025 at 2.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

DAVIS v HOGG [2025] NZHC 2105 [30 July 2025]

[1] In a judgment of 4 July 2025 I granted Ms Hogg’s application for summary judgment.1 I found that she was entitled to costs and invited memoranda to be filed as to the quantum of such costs.

[2] Ms Hogg’s counsel filed a memorandum in accordance with my direction but Ms Davis has not.

[3] Ms Davis did send an email to the Registry asserting that the output of Ms Hogg’s counsel could not extend beyond 0.5 of a business day for a competent practitioner. I do not accept that suggestion.

[4] I have considered Ms Hogg’s counsel’s memorandum as to the costs sought. Costs have been claimed on a 2B basis. The amount sought is entirely reasonable and less than what could have been claimed in the circumstances. I note in this regard that there have been claims for the filing of one interlocutory application and preparing submissions in relation to it, despite other applications having been made and argued. Those applications did not need to be determined because Ms Hogg’s summary judgment application was determinative of the proceeding.

[5] The costs claimed and the basis of calculation are in order. Ms Hogg is awarded costs against Ms Davis in the proceeding in the sum of $15,775 plus disbursements totalling $813.92.

O G Paulsen Associate Judge

Solicitors:
Anderson Lloyd, Dunedin

1 Davis v Hogg [2025] NZHC 1835.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Artemis Indigo Delilah Davis brought an action against Emma Julie Hogg in the High Court, alleging defamation. The court was tasked with determining the outcome of the proceedings, which began with Ms Hogg applying for summary judgment. The central issue for the court was whether Ms Hogg was entitled to summary judgment and, if so, whether the costs claimed by her were reasonable. In granting Ms Hogg's application for summary judgment, the court found that Ms Hogg was entitled to the relief she sought. The court then turned to the issue of costs, assessing whether the amount claimed by Ms Hogg was reasonable. The court noted that the costs claimed were modest, considering the work involved in filing and preparing submissions for the interlocutory application, which was ultimately determinative of the proceeding. The court found that the costs claimed were reasonable and awarded Ms Hogg the costs she sought, totaling $15,775 plus disbursements of $813.92.

The court provided detailed reasoning for its decision, emphasizing that the costs claimed by Ms Hogg were appropriate given the nature and scope of the work required. The court also rejected Ms Davis's suggestion that the work of Ms Hogg's counsel should be limited to 0.5 of a business day, finding this suggestion unreasonable. The court concluded that the costs claimed were not only reasonable but also less than what could have been claimed in the circumstances. The court's decision was final, with no further orders required beyond the award of costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established