Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner

[2012] NZHC 2976

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-0646 [2012] NZHC 2976

BETWEEN  VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Plaintiff

ANDJUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER First Defendant

ANDSIAN SEERPOOHI ELIAS PETER BLANCHARD Second Defendants

ANDJOHN MCGRATH Fourth Defendant

ANDWILLIAM YOUNG Fifth Defendant

ANDANDREW TIPPING Sixth Defendant

Hearing:         On the Papers

Appearances: Plaintiff in person

DJ Goddard QC for First Defendant
Second to Sixth Defendants abiding the decision of the Court

Judgment:      12 November 2012

JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J [COSTS]

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 November 2012 at 3:00 pm

Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Solicitors:

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

V Siemer, 27 Clansman Tce, Gulf Harbour:  [e-mail] C Matsis, Gault Mitchell, Wellington:  [e-mail] Copy:

D Goddard QC, Wellington:  [e-mail]

SIEMER V JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER HC AK CIV-2012-404-0646 [12 November 2012]

[1]      On 27 June 2012, I entered summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff’s applications and refusing the relief sought.[1]

[1] Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner & Ors [2012] NZHC 1481

[2]      The first defendant had made an application for costs in the event that the application for summary judgment succeeded.  I reserved leave to the first defendant to file a memorandum of submissions as to costs by 17 July 2012.  I directed that the plaintiff’s submissions in reply, if any, must be filed and served by 14 August 2012.

[3]      The memorandum of counsel for the first defendant as to costs was received by  email  at  5:36 pm  on  17 July 2012,  Mr Goddard  QC  explaining  that  he  was overseas and had had internet problems that afternoon.   The email to which the memorandum was attached shows that a copy of the email and memorandum were sent to Mr Siemer at “[e-mail].”

[4]      No  submissions  as  to  costs  were  received  by  Mr Siemer  in  reply  by

14 August 2012.     On  8 October 2012,  a  Deputy  Registrar  of  the  Court  sent Mr Siemer  an  email  informing  him  that  the  Court  had  received  the  costs memorandum  from  counsel  for  the  defendants  on  17 July 2012,  and  asking Mr Siemer to advise urgently when a reply memorandum would be filed.  The email informed Mr Siemer that an early response was required and that “the one sided memorandum” of counsel for the defendant would be referred to the Judge should a reply not be received from Mr Siemer from Friday, 12 October 2012 at 4:00 pm.

[5]      Mr Siemer has not filed any reply memorandum.

[6]      The first defendant seeks costs totalling $12,497.20, comprising legal costs according to the Schedule calculated on a 2B basis ($11,442.50) and disbursements of $1,054.70 for filing fees and the travelling costs of counsel.  The costs appear to

have been correctly calculated in accordance with the High Court Rules.

[7]      There being no opposition from Mr Siemer, I order the plaintiff to pay a contribution to the first defendant’s costs in the total sum of $12,497.20, comprising costs of $11,442.50 and disbursements of $1,054.70.

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

Toogood J