Hodder v Baker

[2019] NZHC 681

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CIV 2016-454-92

[2019] NZHC 681

BETWEEN

WALLACE DOUGLAS HODDER AND ANN ADELE HODDER
Plaintiffs

AND

CHRISTOPHER DUNCAN BAKER AND KATHRYN ANN BAKER

First Defendants

AND

KADD FARM LIMITED

Second Defendant

Hearing:

On Papers

Counsel:

J Eckford for Plaintiffs

N Jessen and T Gilchrist for Defendants

Judgment:

3 April 2019

COSTS JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

[1]    Further to the Supreme Court’s decision in September last year,1 the defendants now seek an order that the plaintiffs pay their 2B costs in this Court. They have itemised what they say are the allowable costs and disbursements under the rules, which total $33,227 and $939.62, respectively.

[2]The plaintiffs oppose such an order. They say:

1      Baker v Hodder [2018] NZSC 78. The Court quashed the costs orders previously made in this Court and by the Court of Appeal and ordered that they be re-determined in light of the Court’s decision.

HODDER v BAKER [2019] NZHC 681 [3 April 2019]

(a)the Court should exercise its discretion to refuse or reduce costs under r 14.7(e), namely that the proceeding concerned a matter of public interest and the plaintiffs acted reasonably in the conduct of the proceeding;

(b)that if costs are to be awarded there should be a reduction for certain disputed steps and disbursements, totalling $7,136 and $200 respectively.

[3]    I have little hesitation in rejecting the first proposition. I agree with the defendants that, while the Supreme Court necessarily considered that the appeal raised an issue of general or public interest, that does not, without more, justify the exercise of the r 14.7(e) discretion in relation to costs in this Court. Moreover, the Supreme Court itself ordered that the plaintiffs pay $15,000 costs to the defendants.2 As well, seeking to deny the (ultimately) successful party costs is contrary to the position taken by the plaintiffs earlier, when it was they who had been successful. They were, in fact, awarded $40,000 in costs at that time.

[4]    Nor do I accept the majority of the plaintiffs’ challenges to specific costs items. I am, however, prepared to reduce the overall award by a round figure of $2,000 to reflect my view that additional and unnecessary costs were incurred as a result of the defendants choosing not to attend the initial teleconference in this matter. The other items are, in my view all properly claimed and appropriately follow the event.

2      The Court stated that it did not regard the case as warranting an award of increased costs in either the Court of Appeal or this Court. That does not suggest it envisioned an award of reduced or no costs would be made.

[5]Accordingly, I make orders that the plaintiffs pay to the defendants:

(a)costs in the sum of $31,227; and

(b)disbursements totalling $939.62.

Rebecca Ellis J