Stan Semenoff Logging Limited v New Zealand Transport Agency

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-480

[2019] NZHC 2751

BETWEEN
STAN SEMENOFF LOGGING LIMITED

Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

D J Neutze and S Corlett for Applicant

P F Wicks QC and R McCoubrey for Respondent

Judgment:

29 October 2019

COSTS JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 October 2019 at 4.00 pm.

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

Solicitors: Brookfields, Auckland
Meredith Connell, Auckland

STAN SEMENOFF LOGGING LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY [2019] NZHC 2751 [29
October 2019]

[1] I have an application for costs from Stan Semenoff Logging Limited (the plaintiff). In my substantive judgment, I indicated I would grant interim orders preserving the position of the applicant, subject to the formulation of conditions. I also indicated that the respondent’s concerns in relation to the applicant were justified and that there was evidence of a systemic problem.

[2] The plaintiff accepts that costs on a 2B basis are appropriate for most steps, but submits that the following individual steps should be classified as “Band C” pursuant to rr 14.3 and 14.5:

(a)Plaintiff’s interlocutory application for interim orders (step 1): this required extensive affidavits in support of the application and, in combination, the application and affidavits required a comparatively large amount of time.

(b)Plaintiff’s submissions for the hearing (step 8): these were extensive and comprehensive and required a comparatively long amount of time to complete.

(c)Plaintiff’s preparation of the bundles for the hearing (step 9): the extensive affidavits and exhibits filed in this proceeding resulted in a comparatively large amount of time being required to complete the bundles of documents.

[3]Accordingly, the plaintiff seeks a costs award of $23,972.50.

[4] The respondent submits that no steps in the interim relief proceedings justify Band C classification, as the proceedings have been an ordinary interlocutory application, requiring a normal amount of time for each step in these proceedings. The respondent also submits that, in light of the Court’s findings that the respondent’s concerns in relation to the application are justified and that the number and duration of non-compliances suggests a systemic problem, it was appropriate the respondent resisted the application for interim relief. Accordingly, the respondent submits a costs award totalling $18,813.50 is more appropriate.

[5] I am not satisfied that the steps the plaintiff has referred to were sufficiently complex or time-consuming to justify a Band C application. A costs order on a 2B basis only is therefore sufficient. If quantum is not agreed, it shall be fixed by the registrar. There shall be an order accordingly.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stan Semenoff Logging Limited v New Zealand Transport Agency, dealt with an application for costs submitted by the plaintiff, Stan Semenoff Logging Limited, to the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The plaintiff was seeking an adjustment to the costs awarded for the interim relief proceedings, arguing that certain steps should be classified as "Band C" due to the extensive affidavits and time required for preparation. In contrast, the defendant, New Zealand Transport Agency, opposed the plaintiff's request, arguing that the proceedings were ordinary and that the plaintiff's request for higher costs was not justified.

The central legal issue before the court was whether certain steps in the interim relief proceedings warranted a higher costs classification than that of a standard 2B basis. The plaintiff argued that specific steps were sufficiently complex and time-consuming to merit a Band C classification. Conversely, the defendant contended that the proceedings were ordinary and that the plaintiff's request for increased costs was not warranted, particularly in light of the court's findings that the defendant's concerns regarding the application were justified.

The court found that the steps identified by the plaintiff were not sufficiently complex or time-consuming to warrant a Band C classification. The court concluded that a costs order on a 2B basis was appropriate and that if the parties could not agree on the quantum of costs, it would be determined by the registrar. The court emphasised that the proceedings were ordinary and that the defendant's concerns were justified, leading to the defendant's resistance to the application for interim relief. The court thus rejected the plaintiff's request for a higher costs classification.

The court's final orders were that the costs would be assessed on a 2B basis only. If the parties could not agree on the quantum of costs, it would be determined by the registrar. This decision underscored the court's view that the proceedings were ordinary and that the plaintiff's request for higher costs was not justified.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established