Hickman v Turn and Wave Limited

Case [2011] NZCA 195


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA796/2009
[2011] NZCA 195

BETWEEN  HICKMAN & ORS
Appellant

AND  TURN AND WAVE LIMITED
Respondent

CA797/2009

AND BETWEEN             LESTER & ORS
Appellant

AND  GREENSTONE BARCLAY TRUSTEES LTD
Respondent

CA798/2009

AND BETWEEN             COLLINGWOOD & ORS
Appellant

AND  ICON CENTRAL LTD
Respondent

Court:             O'Regan P, Hammond and Randerson JJ

Counsel:         P J Dale, D W Grove and N R Campbell for Appellants
D J Chisholm and G P Blanchard for Respondent Turn & Wave Ltd
R B Stewart QC and D J Neutze for Respondent Greenstone Barclay Trustees Ltd
B O'Callahan and J Puah for Respondent Icon Central Ltd

Judgment:      18 May 2011 at 11.30 a.m.

(On the papers)

JUDGMENT (NO 2) OF THE COURT

A        By consent, the appeals of all remaining appellants are dismissed.

BEach of the respondents is entitled to costs and disbursements against the appellants jointly and severally in respect of each of the three appeals as specified in [6] to [8] of this judgment.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Randerson J)

  1. In our judgment of 29 March 2011[1] we dismissed appeals relating to the five appellants named at [19] (Mr and Mrs Lester, Ms Janes, Mr and Mrs Britton, Mr Dwight and Ms Hunt, and Mr McFarlane).  We invited counsel to confer and inform the Court by memorandum how the appeals of the remaining appellants were to be dealt with.

  2. A joint memorandum has been filed indicating that all counsel are of the view that the first sentence of [19] of our judgment of 29 March 2011 does not strictly conform with the process directed by the President’s Minute of 12 August 2010.  However, all are now in agreement that all remaining appeals should be dismissed.  We order accordingly.

  3. Counsel have not been able to agree in relation to costs.  The respondents seek costs as for a complex appeal together with a 50 per cent uplift pursuant to r 53C(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.  They also seek costs for steps not provided for in Schedule 2 of the Rules.  These relate to preparation in response to the application by the appellants for leave to amend the grounds of appeal and the pleadings.  The appellants oppose any increased costs and submit that costs should be fixed on the daily rate applicable to a category two proceeding in the High Court.

  4. We are satisfied that costs should be fixed as for a complex appeal on a Band A basis.  We are not persuaded that there should be any uplift of those rates as sought by the respondents.  The appeal occupied four days and the additional time required to deal with the appellants’ application to amend will be reflected in the costs for the additional days.

  5. However, we consider there ought to be an appropriate allowance for preparation in response to the application for leave to amend and for attendance at the pre‑hearing conference.  We are also willing to certify for second counsel in the case of each respondent.

  6. On this footing, the daily recovery rates for each of the respondents will be $2,780 per day.  The number of days for TWL and Icon will for each be as follows:

Preparation for an attendance at pre-hearing conference

.3

Papers in opposition to application for leave to amend pleadings

2

Preparation for hearing of application to amend pleadings 1.75

Preparation for hearing of appeal

3

Attendance at hearing of appeal (principal counsel)

4

Appearance at hearing of appeal (second counsel)

2

Total

(Rounded)13

  1. For Greenstone, the number of days will be 12.5 days since Mr Neutze was not present on the fourth day of hearing.

  2. In addition, the appellants must pay disbursements as follows:

Greenstone (CA797/2009)

$3,988.98

TWL (CA796/2009)

$3,209.00

Icon (CA798/2009)

$3,811.80

Solicitors:
Ellis Law, Auckland for Appellants
Brookfields, Auckland for Greenstone Barclay Trustees Ltd
CMS Legal, Auckland for Turn and Wave Ltd
Carter & Partners, Auckland for Icon Central Ltd


Details
AGLC
Hickman v Turn and Wave Limited [2011] NZCA 195
Case
[2011] NZCA 195
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, three appeals were heard and subsequently dismissed. The appellants, Hickman and others, along with Lester and others, and Collingwood and others, were contesting decisions against them in lower courts. The respondents, Turn and Wave Limited, Greenstone Barclay Trustees Ltd, and Icon Central Ltd, were the parties they had originally contested against. The legal issues revolved around the process of appealing decisions and the appropriate costs associated with such appeals, particularly considering the complexity and the additional steps taken during the proceedings.

The Court addressed the procedural issues by first confirming that the appeals of all remaining parties should be dismissed. Despite an initial disagreement about the precise process, all counsel agreed that the appeals should proceed to dismissal. The Court then turned to the matter of costs, deliberating on the appropriate amount and basis for recovery. The respondents argued for costs reflective of a complex appeal with an additional uplift, while the appellants opposed any increased costs and suggested the standard daily rate for a category two proceeding in the High Court.

The Court concluded that the costs should be fixed as for a complex appeal on a Band A basis, without any uplift. However, it was deemed appropriate to allow for additional preparation time in response to the application for leave to amend the pleadings and for attendance at the pre-hearing conference. The Court also certified for second counsel for each respondent. The total daily recovery rates were set at $2,780 per day, with specific allocations for preparation, attendance, and appearances, leading to a total of approximately 13 days for Turn and Wave Limited and Icon Central Ltd, and 12.5 days for Greenstone Barclay Trustees Ltd. Additionally, the appellants were required to cover specified disbursements for each respondent.

The final orders of the Court mandated the dismissal of the appeals and directed the appellants to pay the respondents' costs and disbursements jointly and severally. The detailed calculations and reasoning provided by the Court ensure clarity on the financial obligations arising from the appeals.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.