IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION
Civil Action No. 655 of 1998

BETWEEN:

DAVID GILMOUR
FIRST PLAINTIFF

FIJI WATER, LLC
SECOND PLAINTIFF

NATURAL WATERS OF VITI LEVU
THIRD PLAINTIFF

AND:

JANUSZ KUBS
DEFENDANT

Civil Action No. 239 of 2003

AND

BETWEEN:

MAMA'O KUBS
PLAINTIFF

AND:

DAVID GILMOUR
FIRST DEFENDANT

:FIJI WATER, LLC
SECOND DEFENDANT

:NATURAL WATERS OF VITI LTD
THIRD DEFENDANT

BEFORE: Justice Deepthi Amaratunga
COUNSEL: Mr. Ronald Singh for Plaintiffs
 Ms. Marie Chang for Defendant (i.e J. Kubs) 

Dates of Hearing: 4th September, 2012 and 23rd January, 2013
Date of Judgment: 20th June, 2014

Judgment on Assessment of Costs

INTRODUCTION 
1.	The civil action No HBC 655 of 1998 was filed on 21st December, 1998. The 1st Plaintiff in that case was David Gilmore and the second and third Plaintiffs were Fiji Water LLC and Natural Waters of Viti Ltd, respectively. The Defendant in the said case was Janusz Kubs. In the statement of claim, allegation against J.Kubs was breach of a restraint of trade clause and also sought injunctive relief against him. The said defendant filed the second amended counter claim for economic duress and damages. Mama'O Kubs who was the wife of Janus Kubs filed Civil Action No. HBC 239 of 2003 against David Gilmore and Fiji Water LLC and Natural Waters of Viti Limited for economic duress and for damages. 

2.	Upon an application, by consent of the parties the court on 15th October,2003, the court inter alia made following orders

a.	The action HBC 239 of 2003 be tried at the same time as the said Action No HBC 655 of 1998.

b.	The Plaintiffs in Action HBC655 of 1998 and Defendants in Action HBC 239 of 2003 be referred to as the Plaintiffs in the proceedings and the Defendants in Action 655 of 1998 and the Plaintiffs in Action 239of 2003 be referred to as Defendants in the proceedings.

c.	The order for consolidation made previously, on summons issued on 29th September, 2003, set aside.(emphasis added)

3.	So, it was erroneous to state in paragraph 3.1 of Plaintiff's written submission that the proceedings were consolidated. In fact the order for consolidation was made, but before it was sealed and executed, the order was set aside and by consent of the parties and it was decided to try the two actions separately but at the same time in terms of the Order 4 rule 9 of the High Court Rules of 1988. In Supreme Court Practice (White Book) 1999 p314/9/2

 ''……….
 Where consolidation must be refused for one reason or another an order will often be made that one action shall follow the other in the same list and be heard before the same Judge (or the same Judge and jury). In this way common witnesses are saved the expense of two attendances, and the Judge will be in a position to try the action in such order as may be convenient or even a the same time. Consolidated actions may be deconsolidated (Lewis v Daily Telegraph (No2) [1964] 2 Q.B. 601, C.A.)"

4.	In this case the two actions were not consolidated but was ordered to tried at the same time and this is possible in terms of Order 4 rule 9 (1) of the High Court Rules of 1988. At the assessment and also in the written submission this was not revealed and it seemed both parties presumed that the actions were consolidated at the time of the hearing.

5.	On 23rd February, 2005 the solicitors for the Plaintiff wrote a letter 'without prejudice save as to costs' informing that the statement of claim in Civil Action No HBC655 of 1998 would be withdrawn on the instructions of their clients. It was withdrawn, but I could not find any sealed order or compliance of Order 21 of High Court Rules 1988. In the written submissions filed both parties did not address this issue. If a party to an action withdraws a claim without leave of the court Order 62 rule 5 (2) is applicable, but in this assessment there is no application by the Defendant under said provision.

6.	Again the Plaintiff's solicitors had written letters indicating that they would be making an application to withdraw claim against Mr. J. Kubs in Civil Action No 655 of 1998 at the commencement of trial. 

7.	After proceeding with hearing, on the counter claim a request was made to have split trials, in terms of Order 33 rule 4 of the High Court Rules of 1988 by the Plaintiffs. Despite the objections from the Defendants, the court allowed the said application to hear the issue of liability of the Plaintiffs without considering the evidence on the assessment of the damages. It should be noted that this decision to have split trials had benefited the Defendants and their costs were reduced as a result of this.

8.	The Defendants (J.Kubs and M. Kubs) failed to establish the economic duress by the Plaintiffs, and costs awarded against Plaintiffs.

9.	 At the conclusion it was held in the judgment 

 'In the end the Court finds the claim by Janusz and Mama O Kubs for economic duress against the Plaintiffs do not arise, and are also dismissed .
 
Costs to the Plaintiffs to be taxed if not agreed.'

10.	There was no agreement between the parties as to the costs. The Plaintiff had submitted a documents comprising of 6 volumes of documents for a claim of $236,144.38. Both parties agreed this matter to be determined by written submissions, as all the documentary evidence were submitted to the court for assessment of the costs. Parties were given an opportunity to make oral submissions. 

11.	The costs awarded by the court was not indemnity costs and the Plaintiffs are entitled only for taxed costs from the Defendants. The counter claim Civil Action in HBC 655 of 1998 and claim of the Civil Action No HBC 239 of 2003 were tried together for liability and both claims were dismissed simultaneously as quoted in the judgment. Hence, the liability of the costs of the said trials which were conducted simultaneously should be joint and or several. As the two trials were conducted at the same time by consent of all the parties the issue of cost needs to be joint and several as there was no agreement to the contrary by the Defendants at that time or any time during the hearing. The parties consented to conduct the two actions simultaneously, hence the separate taxing of each action is not pragmatic and both became liable for costs jointly and or severally in the absence of any such order to the contrary. The manner in which the assessment done was also not conducive to make separate assessments for two actions. These issues were not raised in the written submissions as both parties were under misapprehension that the actions were consolidated at the hearing.

12.	Order 62 Rule 12(3) state that even if the court had not indicated the basis of taxation, then the taxation should be done on the standard basis. Taxation needed to be done in terms of the Gazette No 20 of 7th July, 2006. Appendix 4 of the High Court Rules was revoked and a fresh Scale of Costs – Standard Basis was introduced. Order 62 rule 13 deals with the taxation on standard basis.
13.	According to Order 62 rule 12(1) 'On taxation of costs on the standard basis there shall be allowed a reasonable amount in respect of all costs reasonably incurred and any doubts which the taxing officer may have as to whether the costs were reasonably incurred or were reasonable in amount shall be resolved in favour of the paying party'. (emphasis added)

14.	The approach is two prone. First the court needs to consider each claim whether it is reasonable or not and then if it is a reasonable claim the court needs to assess the reasonable amount. The two prone process is made easier by the schedule found in the Appendix 4 as the amounts and steps stated there can be considered as reasonable claims and then the court has to decide whether it should be allowed lower or higher scale. This schedule was made in terms of Order 62 rule 13(3) of the High Court Rules of 1988 and it states as follows

 '(3) the bill of costs shall consist of such items specified in Appendix 4 as may be appropriate, set out in chronological order; each such item (other than an item relating only to time spent in travelling and waiting) may include an allowance for general care and conduct having regard to such of the circumstances referred to in paragraph (2) above as may be relevant to that item.'(emphasis added)

15.	The burden of proof in taxation of costs claims as to the reasonableness are fairly and squarely with the party claiming costs and any doubt as to reasonableness of claim and amount, needs to be resolved in favour of the paying party (i.e the Defendants).

16.	The bill of costs needs to be in chronological order. Unfortunately the voluminous documents produced in 5 volumes were not set out in chronological order similarly the bill of costs was also not in chronological order. The result was that the bill of costs contained several repeated claims for the same professional services. Whether it was deliberate or inadvertent act cannot be stated with certainty. If it was a mistake at least when the Defendant had indicated certain double claims, those should have been withdrawn and action of prudence would require such course considering the large volume of material submitted for taxation (e.g. Vol. 5 deals with 2005 claims whereas Vol. 4 ends with 2006 claims).

17.	 Though I am inclined to direct the Plaintiffs' solicitors to re-submit the bill of cost in chronological order in compliance with the High Court Rules, I shall not do so considering that there should be end to this litigation and further delay in this assessment cannot be justified, but this had made the assessment much more difficult and time consuming. An act of prudence would have saved time and money for all.

18.	According to the Appendix 4 each item of cost needs to be scaled either under lower scale or higher scale. In the determination of the scale the factors that needed to be considered are found in Order 62 rule 13. I do not wish to repeat all the factors in the said provision. The cause of action for the Plaintiff was based on a clause relating to restraint of trade, but this was withdrawn at the trial. When the Plaintiffs realized the strength of their claim, but lot of water had gone under the bridge by that time. The Plaintiffs should not be allowed to claim costs for the withdrawn claim, which proceeded up to the date of hearing.

19.	The claims that proceeded to hearing were based on the alleged economic duress by the Plaintiffs, that resulted the transfer of the Defendants' stake in the ventures to the Plaintiffs. When the 'Calder Bank offer' was made, the Plaintiffs indicated the strength of the alleged claims for economic duress and suggested a withdrawal of that by the Defendants.

20.	This was a matter that a reasonably skilled solicitor with a reasonable knowledge could have conducted, but considering the nature of the applications before High Court, I would consider this matter on higher scale considering the importance of the action. It is also important to note, though the matter is taxed at higher scale, ipso facto, it is not a reason to spend excessively, by engaging an overseas counsel, knowing the strength of the claim and also counter claims of the Defendants.

21.	 At the same time since the only issue at the hearing was the alleged 'economic duress' it was not a complex matter and by no means justified in extravagant expenses claimed in taxation. The Plaintiffs knew that the claims for economic duress were doomed to fail, from the start and had indicated this early to the Defendants.

22.	The Plaintiff has made a Calderbank offer informing withdrawal of their claim and also indicated to the Defendants the unsustainability of economic duress against the Plaintiffs. So, the Plaintiffs knew that the trial was a hopeless or doomed to fail and in the circumstances it was not reasonable to allow unnecessary and extravagant costs in the taxation of costs.

23.	As admitted by the solicitors for the Plaintiffs, there were two senior partners of law firm, and one other junior solicitor of the law firm, involved and costs regarding the travel and other associated costs for an overseas counsel, cannot be considered reasonable under the circumstances. I have decided that all the expenses of overseas counsel was not reasonably incurred in the circumstances of this taxation.

24.	It is not reasonable for the Plaintiffs to claim for the costs involved in claim for restraint of trade and injunction in Civil Action HBC 655 of 1998, in this taxation. This point was not raised by the Defendants' counsel either in oral or written submissions.

25.	 Prior to the withdrawal of the Plaintiffs' claim at the hearing, the said costs claimed included, costs incurred in for the withdrawn claim against J. Kubs. It was withdrawn only at the trial and all costs up to that time were inclusive of costs for the withdrawn claim. The exact date of withdrawal was not clear but it was in 2005 as there were communications to intending withdrawal.

26.	 Till second amended counter claim was filed by J. Kubs on 17th November, 2003 there was no counter claim for economic duress and all the costs incurred by the Plaintiffs only related to withdrawn claims for restraint and injunction against J. Kubs and they should be excluded in taxation. This issue was again not raised at the assessment by the counsel for Defendants, but it is unreasonable to allow such costs against the Defendants.

27.	In this assessment the documents prior to 2004 were not produced on the basis that they were not available with the solicitors to prepare a bill of costs. At the oral hearing Mr. Ronald Sing who appeared for the Plaintiffs considered this as a substantial concession, and Ms Marie Chang who appeared for the Defendant also thought so, but the Plaintiffs could not claim costs till 17th November, 2003 as the costs involved were entirely incurred for the claim that Plaintiffs withdrew, the Plaintiffs were very fortunate not to get a cost order in favour of the Defendants at the time of the withdrawal of their claim, in 2005.

28.	General rule in costing is that cost follows the event. Since there was no order as to cost in favour of either party at the time of the said withdrawal, cost incurred in the said withdrawn claim should be excluded in any form of costing. It is even illogical to think that the court had granted taxed cost to the party that withdrew the action.

29.	Even though counsel for the Defendant did not submit, there was an issue of cost relating to the withdrawn claim. When the claims were made this cost was included in all the professional dealings till it was withdrawn at the trial. So from 17th November, 2003 till the withdrawal of Plaintiffs' claim against J. Kubs, all the costs for professional services were not entirely costs associated with Defendants claims which were dismissed and costs awarded. When taxation of costs the emphasis is on the 'reasonableness' and the discretion of the court needs to be exercised accordingly. In the circumstances it is not reasonable to allow costs incurred in the withdrawn claim in the taxation for the parties that withdrew the claim.

30.	Next issue is how to apportion costs incurred for withdrawn claim. A reasonable apportionment needs to be deducted. Considering the circumstances of the case I will allow a discount of 25% from the costs incurred up to the withdrawal of the Plaintiffs' claim against the Defendant as the costs incurred for withdrawn claim.

31.	I have assessed a cost of $1770 up to 2005 (up to item 147 below in the schedule). This costs included the costs for withdrawn action as stated above and for that I deduct 25% and allowed taxed cost is $1327.50.The costs after withdrawal of Plaintiffs' claim is fully allocated to the Defendant and assessed at $4,310 details of the said claims are found in the schedule below.

32.	Abbreviations for the Schedule below.
NA – Not Allowed 
NR – Not Reasonable 
App4 – Appendix 4 of High Court Rules Schedule 1 Gazette of 7th July 2006

Schedule
Item	Particulars
	Scale of Costs Appendix-x 4	Costs	Disburse-ments	Evidence	Defendant's Comments on Particulars	Amount allowed by Taxing Officer and reasons	
1.		Reviewing notes for Pre- Trial Conference on 8 September 2004	40	$80		The first page of Vol. 1 lists an e-mail dated 10 September 2004. This e-mail is evidence of PTC notes being reviewed	ML internal cost. Not a taxable item. No docs supplied to justify claim.	 NA. there is no evidence of review.
NR	
2.		Preparing report of PTC on 9 September 2004
	40	$45		This event is incidental to a PTC. The e-mail of 10 September 2004 clearly stipulates that a PTC was held.
	ML internal cost. Not a taxable item. No docs supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR
There is no evidence of report of PTC. The claim is not for PTC.	
3.		Research and advice to client 10 September 2004 	40	$320		Tab 3 encloses this document.	ML internal cost. Not a taxable item related to any application referred to. No evidence of research in doc. This is a summary of a meeting. Points to possibility that they may not a have wining case. Disallow.	There no research. Only a letter explaining what happened in PTC and the advice .
NA /NR 	
4.		Preparing report for telephone conference with client on 10 September 2004

	40	$390		This is a consistent mode of reporting and seeking instructions in the matter given the client was based in USA the time of communication on any given call would be more so that all aspects are covered in one call rather than return calls.	ML internal cost. Not taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR
No evidence 	
5.		Telephone call to client on 13 September 2004	40	$150		Please see comments in item 4.	ML internal cost. Not taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR
No evidence	
6.		Attendance at High Court, registry and enquiry after summons on 14 September 2004	40	$45		This is subject to Court Record.	Not a taxable item. Does not specify which summons it is related to, if any. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR
No evidence on the case record on the said date	
7.		Telephone call to client and email to Kubs's solicitor 17 September 2004
	40	$75		The copy of e-mail is attached and clearly shows that telephone call was attended upon.	No evidence of telephone call to client. Email to Kub's solicitor – OK at reasonable fee	NA/NR
	
	Service of summons 20 September 2004
	1	$125		Service was required to be effected on Yash Law(Solicitor on record) as well as Mr. Herman (Solicitor claiming to hold instruction) 	Not specified whether a bailiff is employed, or another law firm is employed, thus Item 37(a) as agent Shivam & O'Driscoll is less than 1 km away. No bailiff of costs attached. No evidence of service on the summons and affidavit. If only clerk serving, then not at solicitor rate (see ML Claim 11 for $5 rate). Only email confirming issue of summons to ML and affidavit of Moody in support of summons for trial. 	NA/NR
Wrong item on the scale. In terms of item 37 App4 service fee can be claimed $.5 for excess of 3km. There is no evidence of engaging a bailiff and also distance.	
8.		Attendance at Chambers, drafting report and telephone call to client on 21 September 2004
	20	$600		Subject to Court Record there was an appearance on this day. The e-mail report stipulates (see Tab 10 of the record) 	OK as to chamber attendance. Item 24(e) at lower scale (see Surendra Prasad v Lautoka City Council [2012] HBC 300/03L Ruling 27 January 2012 per Tuilevuka, M at [10]. Reference to item 20 is wrong.	This was a mention date Item 24 App4
$300 allowed	
9.		Report to client regarding the assignment of a new judge on 21 September 2004
	40	$80		This report is extensive. It also provides an insight into the proceedings. The issues involved for the recusal of Justice Winter would have been complex and time consuming. 	ML internal cost – Not a taxable item according to the scale. Appears to be repeat of claim 9.	NA/NR
Email to the client explaining what happened on mention date. 40 App4	
10.		Service on city agents for Yash Law (Kubs's solicitors) on 21 September 2004
	40	$5		This was necessary as at this point Yash Law remained Solicitor on record for Kubs. 
	ML internal cost – why serve Yash Law? Herman appeared for Kubs on 21 September 2004 as new solicitor. Kubs already advised ML that Yash Law is no long acting on 31 July 2011 – see para 8 pf Affidavit of Marigold Moodie. Thus, service on Yash Law is unnecessary. Disallow. If allowed, service on city agents, Shivam & O'Driscoll, is less than 1 km away. Fax dated 20/09/04 not 21/09/04. Document 11 is a repeat of document in item 8. Double claim.	NA/NR
No evidence of bailiff being used. Item 37 App4 	
11.		Organizing documents on 22 September 2004
	40	$30			Not a taxable item. Does not specify what documents were necessary or relevant to any court documents. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR
No evidence	
12.		Drafting a response to various queries from client on 23 September 2004
	40	$285		This report envisages several issues. It required a detailed explanation. 
	ML internal cost – Not a taxable item. Report relates to Magic Mountain in any event – not this case. Sundar Lal is not a witness in this case.	Not a separate case as stated, but connected to this case. Sundar Lal is mention in Tab 16,19 emails but he was needed for withdrawn claim.
NA/NR	
13.		Reporting to client on 23 September 2004
	40	$40		This report also enclosed a 5 page report pertaining to Maturi-x (Company based in New Zealand)
	ML internal cost – No a taxable item. Item 13 and 14 dame but different charges listed in BOC. Report relates to Magic Mountain in any event – not this case, although attributed to this case.	 NA/NR	
14.		Various emails to client on 24 September 2004
	40	$135		2 e-mails are attached to substantiate this claim.	ML internal cost – Not a taxable item. Only one email to client given. Already captured in item 9. HCR Schedule 1 item 24(a) includes all services related to attendance.	NA/NR	
15.		Telephone call to Kubs's solicitor and drafting email to client on 29 September 2004
	40	$45		The second page of Tab 16 encloses e-mail of Munro Leys. This confirms discussions between Kubs's solicitor and Munro Leys. 	Phone call to Kubs' Solicitor – no evidence supplied that phone call was made. Report relates to Magic Mountain in any event – not this case. Sundar Lal is not a witness in this case.	NA/NR
 Evidence found in 29th September email but cost for withdrawn claim.	
16.		Telephone call to Kubs's solicitor regarding inspection on 5 October 2004	40	$50		The discussions between parties was on-going. 	Phone call to Kubs' solicitor – no evidence supplied that phone call was made. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
17.		Drafting fax to and telephone call to Kubs's solicitor on 6 October 2004	40	$45		The evidence of telephone call is contained in tab 18. The letter confirms that there was a telephone discussion.	Phone call and fax to Kubs' solicitor – Fax given but no evidence of telephone call to Kubs solicitor.	NA/NR	
18.		Writing to client and reviewing documents on 13 October 2004
	40	$270		A detailed report is provided at Tab 19. The reviewing of documents was necessary as affidavit evidence of a potential witness was contemplated.	ML internal cost – include in trial preparation HCR Schedule 1 item 19. Report relates to Magic Mountain in any event – not this case.	An email regarding this case. The claim for restrictive clause is found in this action but cost related to withdrawn acts.
NA/NR	
19.		Meeting with client on 15 October 2004
	40	$165			ML internal cost – Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR
No evidence	
20.		Reviewing affidavit of client on 19 October 2004	40	$30		Affidavit of David Gilmour is attached as Tab 21. The affidavit is 5 pages long.	ML internal cost – Not a taxable item. Affidavit of client given by dated 10/08/-04 and not 19/10/04. No evidence of review. False document for claim.	$20
For affidavit in opposition	
21.		Court attendance- mention before Justice Jitoko, reporting and liaising with Senior Counsel on 20 October 2004	20	$600		Subject to Court record this was attended on 25 November 2004.	OK as to chamber attendance by MM – jnr. No as to reporting and snr counsel. No evidence that ML has advised Defendant of engagement of snr. Counsel. A court is not obliged to make the unsuccessful party pay for the opponents' desire for Rolls Royce representation. (John Yates & Regina Yates v. South Pacific Recording Limited [1997] ABU 23/97 & ABU 39/96 14 November 1997 per Barker, Thompson & Savage, JJA; Taurus Shipping Co. Ltd v. Vista Fisheries Limited, Fishinvest Fisheries Limited, Registrar of Vessels Fiji Islands Maritime and Safety Administration [2007] HBC 569/05S Decision 23 March 2007 per Udit, M at [9]; Vitiana Timbers (Fiji) Limited v Danzas Aei Limited [2008] HBC 327/07S Ruling 16 September 2008 per Udit, M; In Re Shabu Shabu Restaurant Company Limited [2009] HBF 18/09L 5 November 2009 per Tuilevuka, M at [21]). Attendance for mention did not require snr. Counsel. HCR Schedule 1 item 24(b).	$100 in terms of item 18(a)	
22.		Drafting report regarding hearing date and counsel on 20 October 2004
	40	$80		A series of e-mail exchanged. The hearing was to be held for a period of 3 weeks.	ML internal cost – one line long report does not justify claim. See comment on Rolls Royce treatment in claim 22. Email to QC checking availability is not a report.	NA/NR	
23.		Telephone conference on 1 November 2004 
	40	$90		The message of teleconference is contained in the e-mail at	ML internal cost – Not a taxable item. See comment on Rolls Royce treatment in claim 22. No evidence of teleconference only email to confirm time.	$10 item 40 App4	
24.		Telephone call to Senior Counsel to discuss action points on 2 November 2004
	40	$315		This was necessary as the preparation for the hearing. It was scheduled for 3 weeks.	ML internal cost – Not a taxable item. No evidence that ML has advised Defendant of engagement of snr. Counsel. No evidence of telephone call to Senior Counsel. That phone is mentioned on subject line is not proof. No evidence of teleconference actually held. There is only an intention to hold a conference. Not the same thing.	$10(item 40 App4)	
25.		Teleconference with Senior Counsel on 2 November 2004	40	$480			ML internal cost – Not a taxable item. No evidence that ML has advised Defendant of engagement of snr. Counsel. No doc supplied to justify claim. Double claim.	NA/NR	
26.		Telephone Conference with client providing an update on 5 November 2004 	40	$225		Client was based in USA. The teleconference after fixing of hearing date is justifiable.
	ML internal cost – Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR
No evidence	
27.		Letter to client and faxing to Kubs's solicitor on 8 November 2004
	40	$405		Documentary evidence is provided at Tab 28.	Fax to Kubs' Solicitor – See comment on Rolls Royce treatment in Claim 22. Engagement of Queen's Counsel cost NZ $150K so inflated here. Letter to client is ML internal cost – Not a taxable item.	NA/NR
	
28.		Report to client regarding temporary admission documents on 9 November 2004
	40	$270		This is a necessary requirement for an Overseas Counsel to conduct hearing in the Fiji Courts
	ML internal cost – Not a taxable item – Correspondence is between Dough Carlson and Munro Carlson is CEO of P2 and P#, not of P1. Repeat of correspondence for item 28 but sent on 09/11/04.	
NA/NR	
29.		Telephone call to Kubs's solicitor and responding to various emails from Senior Counsel on 15 November 2004
	40	$105		The meeting between overseas counsel and Munro Leys was an important for preparation purposes.	Phone call to Kubs' solicitor – no evidence supplied that phone call was made. No evidence that ML has advised Defendant of engagement of snr counsel. Responding to emails – not a taxable item.	
NA/NR	
30.		Meeting for Pre-trial conference with Kubs's solicitor and following up on admission docs on 16 November 2004	40	$600		The notes of the pre-trial conference is enclosed as document 31	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item but will allow $150 for all PTC meetings as reasonable. Notes on PTC given but not signed by either party. No evidence of admission docs. Will allow one preparation fee for all work inclusive to trial, at lower scale, thus all items from item 1 to item 148 are covered by this one preparation fee	$150 allowed for PTC.
No dispute.	
31.		Email to client representative on 17 November 2004	40	$45		This e-mail is attached. 	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. This shows bill is to be paid by Natural Waters of Viti Limited, not P1. Disallow.	NA/NR
Email regarding fees	
32.		Uplifting documents from Court registry on 17 November 2004	40	$40		The Application for Temporary admission was lodged with the registry.	ML internal cost – not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim. 	NA/NR
	
33.		Service of Temporary Admission Petition on Fiji Law Society and payment of application fees on 18 November 2004	40	$40		This was also a requirement for an application (Temporary Admission) to be served on Fiji Law Society. This enabled FLS to register any objections.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. See comment on Rolls Royce treatment in claim 22. Docs dated 16/11/04 not 18/11/04. 	NA/NR	
34.		Telephone call to Kubs's solicitor on 19 November 2004	40	$15		The diary inspection has been recorded in earlier documents. Mama O Kubs was to bring this from New Zealand. 	Phone call to Kubs' solicitor –no evidence supplied that phone call was made. No doc supplied to justify claim. 	NA/NR	
35.		Meeting for diary inspection and Pre Trial Conference on 22 November 2004	40	$210		Please see comments on Item 35.	diary inspection – this appears to be ML internal cost to synchronise diary for court attendance. Not a taxable item.
Pre Trial Conference – no evidence supplied that Pre Trial Conference took place to justify claim. In any event, repeat of claim 31. 	NA/NR	
36.		Advice by email to client representative on 23 November 2004	40	$60		The diary inspection was awaited by client. Reporting was necessary.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
37.		Attendance at mention before Justice Jitoko on 25 November 2004	40	$195		This appearance was necessary to finalise PTC. The Plaintiff had earlier applied to dispense with PTC as parties were not able to agree.	This shows instructions from P3, not P1. HCR Schedule 1 item 24(b). MM attended - jnr. 	$100 allowed.	
38.		Collection of Certificate of Temporary Admission on 25 November 2004	40	$24		As 35 above.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim. 	NA/NR	
39.		Reviewing court documents on 3 December 2004
	40	$375		The complexity of the matter required a constant attendance to the matter	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim. Appears to be drumming up evidence.	NA/NR	
40.		Uplifting certificate for temporary admission on 3 December 2004	40	$35		As 39 above.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim. 	NA/NR
Double claim.	
41.		Telephone call to client and reviewing files on 6 December 2004
	40	$540		The telephone call was made to client regarding the matter at hand. The corresponding file numbers are for the same matter.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item – file reference 9282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. Handwritten transcript of telephone call dated 06/12/04 but no evidence of reviewing files. 	NA/NR	
42.		Meeting on 7 December 2004 
	40	$270		Meetings are an important feature for taking instructions and trial preparation. It should be allowed in light of the complexity of the matter.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No evidence of relevance to this action. No doc supplied to justify claim. Disallow 	NA/NR	
43.		Drafting of chronology and reviewing all documents on 8 December 2004
	40	$915	$56.25 (filing fees for temporary admission)	The chronology depicts the diary that was to be provided by Mama'O Kubs upon her return from New Zealand. The disbursements referred to are consistent with paragraphs 33 and 34 (filing of temporary admission).
	Unnecessary. Filing fees for temporary admission – ML internal cost – Not taxable item. Doc not dated but appears to be chronology. No evidence of reviewing docs. Disallow because no scale item. costs - See comment on Rolls Royce treatment in claim 22. 	NA/NR	
44.		Teleconference with Senior Counsel and Instructing solicitor on 8 December 2004
	40	$1125	$350 (costs for temporary admission)

$56.25 (Summons for trial)	Document Number 45 in Volume 1 states that it is a "recap of outstanding preparation for trial." This email also verifies that a teleconference was convened with a senior counsel. The disbursements referred to are consistent with paragraphs 33 and 34 with regards to filing of temporary admission.
	teleconference - ML internal cost and no evidence of teleconference - Not a taxable item. Costs for temporary admission – not a taxable item. See comment on Rolls Royce treatment in claim 22. Summons for Trial – no evidence on the Court file that such a document was filed. Grace Fong is not a witness in this case.	 NA/NR	
45.		Reviewing draft chronology of pleadings and making amendments on 9 December 2004
	40	$225		The chronology provides a quick reference to pleadings that had been filed in court. 	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Copy pleadings filed on 8 September 2004.
if allowed as preparation cost $150 inclusive of all reasonable attendances in preparation for trial – HCR Schedule 1 item 19. No doc supplied to justify claim. See item 31 - $150 already allowed.	NA/NR	
46.		Drafting email to regarding Pre-trial conference minutes on 9 December 2004 
	40	$360		Reference to G282-001 is for the current file and is consistent throughout the matter. The evidence of drafting email regarding PTC is contained in Document 48.
	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. Email given relates to travel arrangements not PTC minutes.	NA/NR
Cost for PTC allowed.	
47.		Amending minutes, meeting with Kubs's solicitor for Pre Trial Conference on 10 December 2004
	40	$600		48 is not a repeated claim in reference to G282-001. It is consistent throughout the case. PTC minutes consisted of six pages.
	Repeated from claim 31. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. See item 31	NA/NR
The sum awarded for PTC included this	
48.		Searches and report on 10 December 2004	40	$40		This has been disallowed by the Master.
	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Search is not specified or related to any item relevant to this action. No doc supplied to justify claim. Disallow 	NA/NR	
49.		Liaising with Counsel on timetable and travel, 13 December 2004
	40	$105		Counsel Moody together with the Queens Counsel travelled to USA to prepare for trial as key witnesses, were located in USA. All incidentals were necessary and justifiable.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No evidence of search and report. See comment on Rolls Royce treatment in claim 22. Disallow 	NA/NR	
50.		Searches, photocopying and drafting report on 14 December 2004
	40	$240		See 50 above.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Searches and photocopy not specified or related to any item relevant to this action. No doc supplied to justify claim. Disallow 	NA/NR
No evidence	
51.		Consideration and signing off on the Pre Trial Conference minutes on 14 December 2004
	40	$225		The PTC minutes were forwarded to the Defendants' Counsel on 9 December, 2004. See 47 above. The signing thereof was just and necessary.	repeated. See claims 31 & 48. Preparation fee if allowed – see claim 46. No doc supplied to justify claim. 	NA
Previously allowed for PTC	
52.		Emails to various parties on 15 December 2004
	40	$195	$92.50
(photocopy at Companies office)	Tab 53 encloses emails to Senior Counsels with the view of holding conference calls. This was in relation to the matter at hand and should be allowed.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No emails are to Kubs' solicitors. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
53.		Letter to client on 16 December 2004
	40	$195		The letter makes reference to Action No. 655 of 1998 and 239 of 2003. This also clarifies that Reference No. G282-001 was used for these matters as was N271-020 and the current Number of G282-003.
	ML internal cost- no provision in the scale for sending an invoice to a client. Who paid it? Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR
The letter relating to fees	
54.		Re-faxing client letter on 17 December 2004

	40	$75		Copy of the 2-page letter is enclosed at Tab 55.
	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No need to pay for ML inefficiencies. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. Disallow.	NA/NR	
55.		Drafting, signing, and filing of Pre Trial Conference minutes. Drafting emails to Senior Counsel and expert (Roger Taylor) on 18 December 2004	40	$570		Document enclosed at 56 verifies that Reference No. N271-020, as well as G282-001 is for the same file.
	Repeated entry on PTC– refer to claim 31, 48, 52. No evidence of drafting, signing and filing of PTC minutes. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. emails - No evidence of email to client. 	NA/NR
Allowed previously	
56.		Email to client re financial accounting issues on 20 December 2004
	40	$90		Tab 57 encloses various emails dealing with the Third Plaintiffs accounts details. It also encloses a six-page chronology of agreed bundle of documents. 
	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No evidence of email to client. Fardell is not a client. No document supplied.	NA/NR	
57.		Drafting various emails to Expert (Roger Taylor), Senior Counsel and witness (Garvin) on 21 December 2004
	40	$195	$495 (accommodation at JJ's on the Park 06.12.04-07.12.04) 	The disbursements relate to Paragraph 43. Tab 58 encloses various emails necessary to have meetings between Roger Taylor, QC Roger Fardell, Tom Nofziger, together with Micheal Garvin. 	Document is not as described. Internal email - disallow. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. No provision in the scale for costs of accommodation. Disallow.	NA/NR	
58.		Conference call with witness (Garvin) on 22 December 2004
	40	$540		Tab 59 encloses 9-page of teleconference note at 7.00am on 22 December, 2004. This was attended by Richard Naidu, Marigold Moody, and QC Roger Fardell.

	Not a taxable item. Reference G282-001 is for a different case and is addressed to P2, who is now not involved in this taxation. Disallow. It appears from document that plaintiff's bill of costs will be NZ$350K so this Bill of costs is being presented to reflect that initial agreement between ML and Doug Carlson. Unconscionable. ML is requesting Fiji Water to pay $60K for fees, but no evidence of request to David Gilmour to pay fees. Since Gilmour is the only plaintiff left in the taxation, and he has not paid any fees on evidence to date, he is not entitled to claim. Mr Prasad, counsel for Plaintiff said in Court before Master Amaratunga on 30 November 2010 (the day Fiji Water factory closed for one day) that two plaintiffs, Fiji Water LLC and Natural Waters of Viti Limited are not involved in the action. Kubs' counsel noted that contemporaneously.	$50
Item 40 App4
No duration is mentioned. Hand written notes are incomprehensible, fully but can be considered as notes of a telephone conversation.	
59.		Telephone conference with witness (Garvin) and Senior Counsel. Drafting brief of evidence of witness (Garvin) on 22 December 2004

	40	$555		Tab 60 encloses a brief of evidence that was prepared on instructions of Micheal Garvin in his earlier teleconference. 	Document is not as described. Not a taxable item. No evidence of teleconference or drafting witness evidence. $555 just to say 'I'm out of the office'? looks automated! Subject line says "Housekeeping Matters" thus unconscionable to charge to Kubs because not a legal task. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	Allowed in above.
Double claim.	
60.		Arranging/paying Filing Fees on 23 December 2004
	40	$225		Subject to Court Record.	No documents filed on 23 December 2004.
False claim. No doc supplied to justify claim. Disallow. 	NA/NR
No evidence on the record	
61.		Drafting and revising witness (Garvin) brief on 23 December 2004
	20	$300		Tab 62 overlaps with the teleconference held on 22 December, 2004 and the subsequent preparation of the brief of evidence.
	Repeated entry. Does not relate to HCR Schedule 1 item 20 therefore cannot claim. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR
It is clear that the document 62 relate to this case but for withdrawn claim	
62.		Call to PricewaterhouseCoopers ("PwC") (Jenny Seeto – witness) on 10 January 2005
	40	$49.50		At Tab 60 enclosed is an email from Richard Naidu to Jenny Seeto requesting for a teleconference. Jenny Seeto was a potential witness and a key person to verify the Third Plaintiffs accounts during the 1995 to 1997 periods. The discussion in the circumstances over telephone would have been lengthy and difficult. 	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim.	$30
Item 40 App4	
63.		Reviewing Companies Office records and drafting statement of issues on 11 January 2005	40	$396		Tab 64 is a document which encloses thought-provoking questions with regards to the claim of the Plaintiff and the claim of the Defendants'. This would have required extensive perusal of materials. 	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No evidence that these 2 activities are related to the action. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. No evidence of reviewing companies office records.	$30
Item 40 App4	
64.		Further drafting Statement of issues and emails on 12 January 2005	40	$379.50		Tab 65 encloses various emails between Marigold Moody, Robert Fardell and collection of documents relating to Third Plaintiff's accounts.	emails - ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. 
statement of issues - No evidence that this is related to the action. Emails supplied but no evidence of further drafting of statement of issues. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. The information sought relates only to P3 and not all the companies, thus Plaintiff counsel is wasting time and costs by requesting information one at a time, and having to draft multiple requests in respect of each plaintiff. Disallow. 	$5
Item 40 App4	
65.		Preparing for interview of Jenny Seeto of PwC (witness) on 13 January 2005	40	$66		This interview was anticipated and referred to previously in emails contained at Tab 60.	ML internal cost. Preparation already allowed – see claim 46. No doc supplied to justify claim. 	NA/NR	
66.		Meeting with Jenny Seeto of PwC (witness), recording brief of evidence and obtaining financial accounts from Carol Watkins (finance director, Natural Waters of Viti Limited) on 14 January 2005
	40	$676.50		Tab 67 provides evidence of meeting between Jenny Seeto and Counsel for the Plaintiffs. Jenny Seeto was a potential witness. Tab 67 also provides a 16-page financial statement of the Third Plaintiff.	ML internal cost. Preparation already allowed – see claim 46. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Here, coaching witness what to say. Wrong! Disallow. 	$30
Item 40 App4	
67.		Meeting with client on 17 January 2005, Los Angeles	40	$1980	$2,289.50
(Air Pacific ticket for instructing solicitor- Nadi/LA/Nadi)

$840.34 (Travel and expenses for instructing solicitor)	The arrangement for travel was made in early December for travel of the Plaintiff's Counsels and to take briefs of David Gilmour and Doug Carlson (witnesses).	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. preparation already allowed – see claim 46.
No need to have meeting in LA. Disallow travel expenses. No provision in the scale for air ticket or per diem. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR
	
68.		Meeting with client on 18 January 2005, Los Angeles
	40	$1155		The minutes of the meeting for both 17 January, 2005 and 18 January, 2005 is attached at Tab 68 and 69.
	Document is not as described. Appears to be a chronology. Repeat of claim 44. ML internal cost. Not a taxable item. No need to have meeting in LA. No evidence of meeting with client. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
69.		Service of documents on 18 January 2005	37(a)		$100		No proof of nature of documents served and not a taxable item. Cost claim may be related to cost item 73. Repeated entry. If allowed as taxi, claim 73 as Item 37(a) should have been placed next to item 70 and distance specified - say 6 km from Suva to Kalabu Tax Free zone. No doc supplied to justify claim. Counsel at hearing was prepared to allow $8 taxi fare, but client now instructs to follow the scale which allows $1, so we have revised this to fit in with the scale as taxation is on a standard basis.	NA/NR
No proof of bailiff being used and expenditure	
70.		Meeting with client 19 January 2005
	40	$660		Minutes of meeting is attached at Tab 71 which was attended by Tom Nofzeiger, Dharmesh Harilal, Ian Lincolne, Carol Watkins and Roger Taylor. 
	Document is not as described. Nofzeiger is witness. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
71.		Drafting briefs on 20 January 2005
	19	$300		At Tab 72, a substantial six-page Witness Brief is attached. 
	Briefing witness on what to say! Audacious. Preparation already allowed - see claim 46. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
72.		Reviewing various emails and following up on meetings with witnesses on 24 January 2005
	40	$247.50	$12.80 (Taxi fare for service of documents)	The disbursement of $12.80 as taxi-fare relates to item 70. Document 73 encloses letters and emails between Robert Fardell, Clients and Solicitors on record. 
	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Repeated entry – see claim 70. Costs for taxi fare is excessive. $3 already allowed in claim 70. QC is paid by P3, not P1. No evidence of payment by P1. No evidence of following up with witnesses or reviewing emails. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
73.		Correspondence with clients on 25 January 2005
	40	$264		Item 74 refers to a letter from a Senior Counsel, Richard Naidu to the Second Plaintiff. Tab 74 also encloses emails and disbursements of NZ $48,535.02 as payment to Queens Counsel.	ML internal cost- asking for payment of fees is not a taxable item. Document is a duplicate of claim 96. No evidence of request for payment of fees from P1. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
74.		Drafting letter to Kubs's solicitor on 25 January 2005
	40	$200		Tab 75 beneath the email to Client contains a fax transmission to Defendant's Solicitor. This is evidence of detailed communication from Plaintiffs' Solicitor to Defendants' Solicitor.	Claim is for letter to Kubs' solicitor but what is supplied is email from Marigold Moody to Doug Carlson. Wrong document. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	$10
Item 40 App4	
75.		Attempt to locate Sundar Lal (potential witness) on 26 January 2005
	40	$412.50		Tab 77 encloses email of Plaintiffs' Solicitors amongst themselves referring to Sundar's number. This is a clear evidence of attempt to locate Sundar.	ML internal cost - Not a taxable item. Not relevant to this action but to a different case - Magic Mountain. No doc supplied to justify claim. No need to locate Sundar Lal, a non-witness, as the Magic Mountain claim is settled – see claim 139 costs column.	NA/NR
Cost for withdrawn claim.	
76.		Reordering proceedings on 27 January 2005
	40	$165		Tab 77 contains email from Ms. Moody to Mr. Fardell referring to communications between Solicitors for the Party in order to reordering proceedings. 	Document is not as described. Disallow.	NA/NR	
77.		Drafting emails and telephone call to client on 28 January 2005
	40	$445.50		Tab 78 refers to various emails between Plaintiffs' Solicitors, Clients and Defendants' Solicitor. The evidence of telephone discussion is contained in email from Ms. Moody to Defendants' Solicitor. 	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Report relates to Magic Mountain in any event – Rt Ovini and YP were never witnesses in this case. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Jon Apted is not a client but a lawyer at ML. Fardell is not a client but the QC. Dharmesh Harilal is not the client. Wrong document supplied. Page 2 of email of 28 Jan 2005 is a blank piece of paper. Marigold Moody is not a client. Anselm Herman is not a client but Kubs' lawyer. Roger Taylor is not a client. Richard Naidu is not a client. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
78.		Reviewing Natures Best files on 31 January 2005
	40	$858		The Nature's Best Company was the initial company which was used as a vehicle to setup Fiji Water. The review of Nature's Best files was necessary in these proceedings.
	ML internal cost- Not related to action. Concede there is reference to Nature's Best in the judgment, although this item does not say that files are being reviewed at Companies office. Similar to HCR Schedule 1 item 27 – Witness and reimbursements. No evidence of review of Nature's Best files. Here, activity is to collect box, not review. Tom Nofziger says he is too busy – buried with budgets, to review. Unconscionable charge. Email from MM dated 31 Jan 2005 says unable to collect files so no review undertaken. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Reference W247-004 is for a different case. Email of MM dated 31 Jan 2005 is not about reviewing files. Disallow. 	NA/NR
	
79.		Sorting through Nature's Best files and witness (Garvin's) files and drafting emails, reminders and letters on 1 February 2005
	40	$924		Volume 2 refers to discovering more of Nature's Best files. Tab 80 is consistent and related to the court action. Tab 80 also discovers documents pertaining to Nature's Best.	ML internal cost- Not related to Court action. Repeated from claim 79. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR
Cannot claim under item 40	
80.		Reviewing files from discovery on 2 February 2005
	11(a)	$100		This is a prudent exercise given that fresh documents are being discovered. 	ML internal cost- Does not relate to item 11(a) (application for interrogatories). No evidence of interrogatories therefore cannot claim on this scale. No doc supplied to justify claim. Can't rely on claim 80 documents to support this claim.	No evidence of interrogatories 
NA/NR	
81.		Reviewing progress on 2 February 2005
	40	$247.50		This is a prudent exercise given that fresh documents are being discovered.
	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim. Disallow 	NA/NR	
82.		Call to Senior Counsel on 2 February 2005
	40	$66		The call was to a Senior Counsel based in Australia.
	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim. Disallow 	NA/NR	
83.		Reviewing files on 2 February 2005
	40	$297		The call was to a Senior Counsel based in Australia.
	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA	
84.		Email to client on 2 February 2005
	40	$16.50		These correspondences are mainly between Counsels for the Plaintiffs' in an attempt to locate witnesses.
	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item Reference G282-001 is for a different case Magic Mountain in any event. Disallow. Emails between ML's lawyers only. Jon Apted and Marigold Moody are not clients but lawyer for the Plaintiff. Sundar Lal is not a witness in this case. 3 repeated documents supplied.	
The email relates to this action. There is no other action. Magic Mountain is not a case but a company (see email 2.2.2005 under tab85., 89,103(17th Feb,2005 email) This is relating to withdrawn claim against Kubs
NA/NR	
85.		Telephone call to Sundar Lal (potential witness) on 2 February 2005
	40	$120		The telephone call to Sundar Lal is evidence in an email attached at Tab 85 from Jon Apted to Marigold Moody. This records evidence of Mr. Apted's discussion with Sundar Lal.
	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Not relevant to this action. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR
Cost for withdrawn claim 
	
86.		Conference call on 2 February 2005
	40	$300		The conference call was the only medium to connect Senior Counsels based in Australia and Clients based in USA.
	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim. Disallow 	NA
Alternatively, part of preparation
included in item119 of the claim below	
87.		Reviewing further witness (Garvin) files, sending documents to Kubs's solicitor, correcting list of documents and emailing Tom Nofziger (financial controller Fiji Water LLC, United States) on 3 February 2005

	40	$858		This became necessary after the discovery of Nature's Best files and documents. Subject to Court Record, the Master has allowed this item.	reviewing witness files – If preparation, if allowed – see claim 46. Sending documents to Kubs' solicitor - No documents available, none supplied by ML and not a taxable item. 
correcting – defendant should not be responsible for ML inefficiencies. Only emails to Tom Nofziger supplied, not other docs. Same document as in claim 79. Disallow. 	NA
Alternatively, part of preparation
included in item119 of the claim below	
88.		Drafting email to client on 3 February 2005
	40	$100		Tab 89 contains email as well as facts transmission enclosing Magic Mountain Offering Memorandum.	Document is not as described. Roger Taylor is not a client. Reference G282-001 is for a different case Magic Mountain in any event. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
89.		Reviewing files on 4 February 2005
	40	$412.50		Tab 90 encloses a letter evidencing discovery of documents. This letter further details that at that point in time two cartons of documents were supplied to be reviewed.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item Reference G282-001 is for a different case Magic Mountain. This document explains the weak case ML has against Kubs in Magic Mountain, thus they knew they should settle it or withdraw. They waited until claim 139 to withdraw, hence wasting time, and unnecessarily charging other costs to Kubs. Disallow.	NA/NR

The magic mountain is relating to the restraint of trade clause and this was withdrawn.	
90.		Email inquiries to Tom Nofziger and Senior Counsel and reviewing files on 7 February 2005
	40	$346.50		In light of further documents (two cartons), the constant review of the file was necessary to enable appropriate discovery.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Plaintiff's option of private transcript is Rolls Royce treatment - see claim 22. The High Court could have provided court record. No evidence of reviewing files. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	 NA/NR	
91.		Telephone call to Tom Nofziger and client and reviewing documents on 8 February 2005	40	$412.50		A document just before Tab 92 provides evidence of telephone call to Tom Nofziger on 7 February, 2005 and subsequent emails and details evidence of review. 	Preparation is already covered. No evidence of telephone call or reviewing of docs. What is supplied is email. No reference to phone call. Doug Carlson is not a client. Rolls Royce treatment is unnecessary. Document is almost a repeat of claim 91. 	NA
Part of preparation
included in item119 of the claim below	
92.		Telephone call to client, meeting Ratu Ovini Bokini (potential witness) and call to Ian Lincolne on 9 February 2005	40	$577.50		The discussion centred around Ratu Ovini Bokini as a potential witness. This was contained in Tab 85.	ML internal cost- Rt Ovini Bokini is not a witness. No doc supplied to justify claim. 	NA
Part of preparation
included in item119 of the claim below	
93.		Correspondence with client and witness (Ian Lincolne) on 9 February 2005
	40	$200		The email referred to in Tab 94 is dated 25 January, 2005.	appears to be coaching witness. Disallow. If preparation, if allowed – see claim 46. But no evidence of contact with witness. Documents for claim 94 and 96 are repeated. Doug Carlson is not a client. Same document as claim 75. Repeated. 	NA
Part of preparation
included in item119 of the claim below	
94.		Legal research and telephone call to Rajend Patel (potential witness) and Ian Lincolne (witness) on 10 February 2005	40	$379.50		At this point the investigation was seeking to identify potential witnesses. The discussions with Rajend Patel and subsequent correspondence with Ian Lincolne is evidenced in the third last document before Tab 101. 	ML internal cost – not a taxable item. Rajend Patel is not a witness. Lincoln - appears to be coaching witness. Disallow. No doc supplied to justify claim. Intention to call but no evidence to say it is done	NA, included in item119 of the claim below	
95.		Email to Ian Lincolne. Reviewing reply from Ian Lincolne. Telephone call to Rajend Patel and reporting via email to client and Ian Lincolne. Telephone calls to Rajend Patel and Ian Lincolne on 10 February 2005
	40	$600		As per Tab 95.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item – Payment by P2, not P1. Report relates to Magic Mountain in any event - not this case. No evidence of telephone call to Lincolne. It is about buffer zone legislation, not Kubs. 'Kubs' was added later in pen. Unconscionable to charge to Kubs just because of mere reference to Kubs. Document is a repeat of claim 74. Disallow. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. Triple claim 74, 94, 96. Insufficient documents supplied.	No such document under tab95

NA/NR	
96.		Reviewing files on 11 February 2005	40	$313.50		This is a necessary step in light of daily correspondences and further discovery of documents.	Already covered in preparation. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
97.		Arranging documents into chronological order. Telephone call to Tom Nofziger, Roger Taylor and Zarin Khan (potential witness) on 14 February 2005
	40	$412.50		Evidence of this exercise is contained in Tab 101. This chronology is 19 pages long and substantial time and effort would have been required to prepare it.	arranging documents - ML internal cost. 
Tom Nofzinger, Roger Taylor are not witnesses; Zarin Khan is related to another action – Magic Mountain. Disallow. No doc supplied to justify claim. Since taxation is on standard basis, these should not have been included.	NA/NR
Double claim
Alternatively included in item119 of the claim below	
98.		Telephone call to Dr Nur Bano Ali (potential witness). Preparing emails, reviewing files and telephone call to Roger Taylor (expert witness) on 15 February 2005
	40	$924		The evidence of communication with Dr. Nur Ali and Zarin Khan is contained in the second last page of Tab 103.	reviewing emails, reviewing files and telephone calls - ML internal cost.
Dr Nur Bano Ali & Roger Taylor are not witnesses. Disallow. No doc supplied to justify claim. 	NA/NR	
99.		Follow up on funds on 15 February 2005
	40	$100		The evidence of following up funds is contained in the first page of Tab 102.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
100.		Telephone conference with Tom Nofziger and Roger Taylor (expert witness). Meeting at PwC with Jenny Seeto. Perusal of documents and drafting list of documents on 16 February 2005	40	$1006.50		The list of documents referred to is contained in Tab 101. The meetings were a continued follow-up on witnesses in light of further discoveries.	tele-conference, meeting, perusal of documents - Document is not as described. ML internal cost- Tom Nofziger and Roger Taylor are not witnesses. No evidence of teleconference or meeting with Jenny Seeto. Reference G282-001 is for a different case Magic Mountain in any event. Disallow. Document looks like a repeat of claim 104.	NA/NR	
101.		Reviewing email from client. Email to client. Teleconference with client on 16 February 2005
	40	$200		The email of Marigold Moody sheds some light on communication and preparation to correspond with Client.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item – this shows payment to be paid by P2, not P1. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Arranging payment of fees should not be charged to Kubs. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
102.		Arranging documents and meeting with Zarin Khan (potential witness) on 17 February 2005
	40	$990	$10.00 (Telegraphic transfer charges by Westpac)	The evidence of meeting with Dr. Nur Ali and Zarin Khan is contained in the second last page of Tab 103.	arranging documents and meeting - ML internal cost. Zarin Khan is not a witness related to this action. Not clear that the description refers to the present case. Reference G282-001 is for a different case Magic Mountain in any event. Disallow. 	$5 
Item 40 App4	
103.		Preparing list of documents, affidavits and flow chart on 18 February 2005	10(a)	$150		The list of documents was forwarded to Overseas Counsel containing 19 pages of list of documents.	OK to preparation of list of documents – item 10(a) but not chart flow or affidavits, as there is no court record of any affidavit being filed. List of docs supplied but dated 16/02/05. Looks like a repeat of claim 101. Unnecessary 	$150
Item 10(a)	
104.		Registry search and report conducted on 21 February 2005	40	$100		Tab 105 contains a company search document relating to Nature's Best.	registry search - Not a taxable item. Not related to this case. Nature's Best was not party to this litigation. Disallow.	$10
Item 40 App4
The search was relating to the action.	
105.		Email and telephone call to Senior Counsel. Arranging documents on 21 February 2005	40	$643.50		The second last page of Tab 106 provides evidence of telephone call on Senior Counsel based in Australia. 	Not a taxable item. Part of preparation which is already covered - see claim 46. Duplication of document in claim 104.	NA/NR
No evidence of telephone call under tab106, trying to withdraw the action and mitigate the issue of cost.	
106.		Preparing documents for trial on 22 February 2005	19	$300	$25.24 (WBC draft IFO New Zealand District law)	The amended list of documents pursuant to Order 25 Rule 5 of the High Court Rules is prepared for the purposes of trial. This would logically require research and preparation as in Item 108.
	Not specific as to what documents are being prepared. Preparation of briefs & witnesses already allowed – see claim 46.draft charges – what is this for? No doc supplied to justify claim. Disallow.	NA/NR
No evidence under tab106	
107.		Research and preparation on 22 February 2005.
	40	$200		See comments on 107. Further evidence of trial preparation is contained in documents attached in Tab 110, in particular the chronology prepared on 22 February, 2005.	research - ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. If preparation, if allowed – see claim 46. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR
It is not a research. 	
108.		Telephone calls to client. Drafting Calderbank letter and chronology. Research on 23 February 2005
	40	$940.50		The Calderbank letter offered Mr and Mrs Kubs a sum of $100,000 as full and final settlement of the matter. At this stage the Defendants were put on notice that full costs are recoverable.	drafting letter Immaterial because Calderbank –v- Calderbank [1976] Fam 93 type letter is only for purposes of indemnity costs, not standard costs. Here, taxation is on standard costs basis.
Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. telephone - ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No evidence of telephone call. Document is repeated as claim 110 with date change.	NA/NR	
109.		Telephone call to client, amending and sending letter to client. Call to Senior Counsel Finalising chronology of pleadings on 24 February 2005	40	$990	$22.50 (amended list of documents)	The disbursement of $22.50 correlates with Tab 106and is wrongly placed in this document.	telephone and letter to client- no letter attached. (Amended LOD was filed on 23 Feb 05 not 24 Feb 05). Pleadings filed on 8 September 2004. Repeat of claim 109 with date change. 	NA/NR

110.		Research duress cases on 28 February 2005
	40	$346.50		The Defendants' case or counter-claim against the Plaintiffs was placed on duress and research in this regard was necessary and justified. The disbursements of $27.20 referred to in Item 116 correlates to this.
	Preparation already counted. See claim 46. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
111.		Research and preparation on 1 March 2005
	40	$500		See comments on 111.	Repeated entry with claim 95, 108 & 111. preparation already allowed – see claim 46. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
112.		Telephone calls to client, and Dharmesh Harilal (witness). Email to Senior Counsel and research and preparation on 1 March 2005
	40	$924		Tab 113 attaches various documents. This includes evidence of telephone calls to Clients and Draft Witness Brief of Dharmesh Harilal.
	telephone call, email and research - ML internal cost. Not a taxable item. Dharmesh Harilal is not a witness. Preparation already allowed – see claim 46. Report relates to Magic Mountain in any event which was withdrawn - not this case. No evidence of telephone call to witness. If ML knew on 1 March 2005 they intended to withdraw the Magic Mountain claim, why did they wait until 18 March 2005 to advise? They are unnecessarily claiming for costs incurred between 3 Feb 2005 (see claim 90) and 18 March 2005 (see costs in claim 139).	NA/NR	
113.		Research and preparation on outstanding issues on 1 March 2005	40	$115.50		This preparation overlaps with time spent as in Items 111 and 112.
	research - ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Preparation - Repeated entry with claim 95, 108, 111, 112, 113. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR
No research	
114.		Drafting letter to Kubs's lawyers on 2 March 2005
	40	$247.50		The copy of the letter is attached to Tab 115.

	Letter to Kubs' lawyer - dated 10/08/09 not 02/03/05. Teaching witness what to say. Wrong! Reference G282-001 is for a different case Magic Mountain in any event. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
115.		Finalising affidavit of Dharmesh Harilal on 3 March 2005
	40	$132	$27.20 (photocopying cases)	The disbursement charges of $27.20 relate to items 111 and 112. This has been wrongly placed at 116. The evidence of works done on Dharmesh Harilal Affidavit is at Tab 116. This Witness Brief consists of 3 pages.

	Affidavit of Dharmesh Harilal not found in court file or registered as filed in Court Cause Register. Disallow. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. photocopying – no specifics on the relevance of these cases to the action. Here, a draft brief of evidence, not an affidavit, was prepared. Harilal was not a witness. Instructing witness what to say! Audacious to claim. 	NA/NR 
No evidence
	
116.		Drafting amendments to withdrawal letter on 4 March 2005	40	$500		This was a cautious exercise by the Plaintiffs in withdrawing against the Defendants. This letter also contained an invitation to the Defendants to withdraw their claim as well and save costs. This letter also puts the Defendants on notice that substantial costs would be claimed by the Plaintiffs as no substantive cause of action was pleaded by the Defendants.
	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. If this relates to another action where Plaintiff withdrew case against Defendant, it should not be counted here. Email noting draft letter of withdrawal but no evidence of amendments. If Mr Gilmour withdrew the case, why are they asking for costs? Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA
Not allowed as it was not necessary to send a detail brief to said witness
Alternatively included in item119 of the claim below	
117.		Conference call with client and senior counsel on 4 March 2005
	40	$400		The evidence of discussions between Counsel and Client is depicted from Tab 119 email. Tab 119 contains a series of emails pertaining to withdrawal, trial preparation, as well as preparing witness briefs for and on behalf of Dharmesh Harilal. This exercise was endouvered on instructions and by consent of Dharmesh Harilal.
	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim. 	NA/NR
Not necessary expense
Alternatively included in item119 of the claim below.	
118.		Telephone call to senior counsel, rewriting withdrawal letter and preparing witness briefs on 4 March 2005
	40	$1089		Explanation as above. Evidence of telephone discussions could be found in the 4th last document attached to Tab 120.
	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Repeated letter in claim 117. No evidence of further preparation than already covered. No evidence of telephone call. Witness Harilal even has difficulty understanding the evidence he is supposed to give! Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	$10
Item 40 App4
Prior notice as to a claim for cost if proceeded with counter claim.	
119.		Drafting witness briefs on 5 March 2005
	19	$300		This Witness Brief was pertaining to Michael Garvin. It was also prepared following substantial email discussions, meetings and instructions received from Michael Garvin.
	Preparation as already allowed under claim 46. Michael Garvin and Lincoln brief – coaching witnesses what to say! latter repeated 3x. Not a taxable item.	$300
This is for all.
Instructions for and preparing for trial inclusive of instructions for and preparation of brief	
120.		Conference call with client and Senior Counsel on 6 March 2005
	40	$825	$61.28 (telephone charges)	The email of Ms. Moody to Doug Carlson (Client) states "Witness Brief attached as discussed". This is evidence to teleconference between the parties.
	Preparation already allowed – see claim 46. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
121.		Research and preparation. Telephone call to Kubs's Solicitor on 7 March 2005 	40	$600		The evidence of discussion between Kub's lawyer and Solicitors' for the Plaintiffs is attached as the 9th document as Tab 123. Interestingly, Kub's Solicitor was notified of the issue of costs and the risk associated with pursuing the claim. The attitude displayed by the Defendants at this stage was that they have nothing to lose. This is depicted from the email.

	Research & Preparation – repeated claim – see claim 46. telephone - no evidence of telephone call to Kubs' solicitor. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR
Alternatively, part of preparation
included in item119 of the claim above.	
122.		Conducting search, photocopying and reporting on 7 March 2005
	40	$100		The disbursements for conducting search and photocopy has been wrongly included at Tab 126. This should be included in this item. Tab 123 provides email evidence of thorough preparation and conducting research on the matter.

	Search is not specified or related to any item relevant to action. ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No evidence of search or anything. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Not only disallow for coaching witness what to say but penalize Plaintiff. 	NA/NR
Alternatively, part of preparation
included in item119 of the claim above	
123.		Meeting with Kubs's solicitor, redrafting briefs, file note of meeting on 7 March 2005
	40	$1600.50		Tab 124 includes a Calderbank Offer. This is an important document with regards to the current proceedings before the Court. It stipulates that at all material times a generous offer of $100,000 was given to the Defendants. The letter approximates costs of the Plaintiffs to defend against the counter-claims in excess of $500,000. This was a genuine attempt by the Plaintiffs after having withdrawn their claim against the Defendants to save costs, time and resources for all parties involved, including that of the Court. Tab 126 encloses an email dated 9 March, 2005 from Michael Garvin to Marigold Moody evidencing meeting held on 7 March, 2005. This states that the meeting was held between Ms. Moody, Richard Naidu and Defendant Solicitor, Anselm.
	Reference to meeting with Kubs' solicitor in fax but no other proof, no evidence of re-draft of briefs or file note. Repeated document as in claim 110. 	$50
Item 40 App4	
124.		Drafting witness briefs on 8 March 2005
	19	$300		Tab 125 includes the Witness Brief of Dharmesh Harilal which is substantive giving clear indication of the continuing time devoted to perfect the Witness Briefs in light of further documents discovered.	ML internal cost. Repeated claim – see claim 46, 72, 94 & 120.Reference G2820-001 is for a different case. Instructing witnesses what to say! Not only disallow but penalize the Plaintiff. 	NA/NR
Alternatively, part of preparation
included in item119 of the claim above.	
125.		Reviewing witness briefs and evidence on 9 March 2005
	19	$300	$4.77 (Search and photocopy)	Tab 126 attaches emails to Counsel based in Australia, including Natural Waters company documents and correspondences pertaining to discussions between Counsel and Client on a Sunday.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Repeat claim – see 72, 94, 120 & 125. costs not specified or relevant to the action. Disallow. USA allotment documents have no relation to this case. Coaching witnesses what to say! Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR
Alternatively, part of preparation included in item119 of the claim above.	
126.		Telephone call to client on 10 March 2005	40	$396	$3.74 (taxi services)	Tab 126 attaches an email dated 9 March, 2005 confirming telephone discussions to be held on 10 March, 2005.	telephone - ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Taxi – what is this for? No doc supplied to justify cost. Disallow.	NA/NR
Alternatively, part of preparation included in item119 of the claim above.	
127.		Telephone call to witness (Garvin) and amending brief of evidence on 11 March 2005	40	$874.50		Tab 128 attaches an email dated 11 March, 2005 that clearly indicates that discussions were held between Ms. Moody and Michael Garvin. It records that a request for a faxed copy was provided to the Queens Counsel. However, the Plaintiffs have not included this as part of the taxation costs. This is consistent in many other items where certain costs and disbursements have not been included. This could be treated as a discount.	Call to Garvin - no evidence. Not a taxable item. Coaching witnesses! 
Brief of evidence - repeated claim - see 72, 94, 120, 125 & 126. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR
Alternatively, part of preparation
included in item119 of the claim above.	
128.		Meeting with Kubs's solicitor (Anselm Herman) on 11 March 2005
	40	$500		Tab 130 includes a letter dated 14 March, 2005 confirming withdrawal of Plaintiffs case against the Defendant. The letter records that these discussions were held on 11 March, 2005 and 14 March, 2005. 
	No evidence such a meeting did take place. ML fax in claim 130 refers to discussions on 14/5/05, not 11/05/05. Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify cost.	NA/NR
Alternatively, part of preparation
included in item119 of the claim above.	
129.		Telephone call to client. Meeting and drafting letter to Kubs's solicitor on 14 March 2005
	40	$379.50		Explanation as per 129.	telephone - ML internal cost. Letter is mainly related to withdrawal of Magic Mountain case. This should not be charged to Kubs. 	NA or Alternatively, part of preparation included in item119 of the claim above.	
130.		Meeting with Kubs's solicitor and internal preparation meeting on 14 March 2005
	40	$500		Tab 133 (first page) is evidence to this meeting. 	meeting - no evidence of meeting with Kubs' lawyer. internal preparation - ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. 	NA/NR
Alternatively, part of preparation included in item119 of the claim above.	
131.		Telephone call to client. Attendance before Judge Jitoko. Telephone call and drafting letter to Kubs's solicitor on 15 March 2005	40	$610.50		Subject to Court Record the attendance before the Judge and subsequent reporting to Client is justifiable and necessary.
	OK as to Chamber attendance of one counsel (either RN or MM) HCR Schedule 1 item 24(b). However, no evidence of court attendance supplied.
telephone - Proof of phone call and letter not supplied by ML as evidence that phone call was made or letter sent, to justify cost.	NA/NR
Alternatively, part of preparation
included in item119 of the claim above.	
132.		Email to client regarding discussions with accountant on 15 March 2005
	40	$150		The email is attached at Tab 133.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No proof of discussions with accountants. Preparation already allowed – see claim 46. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Why should a settlement claim be charged to Kubs? Disallow. 	NA/NR
Alternatively, part of preparation included in item119 of the claim above.	
133.		Telephone call to client regarding accountants and strategy on 16 March 2005	40	$400		The series of emails included in Tab 133 verifies this claim. This was a follow-up discussion on the issue of "discussion with accountant".
 	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify cost. 	NA/NR
Alternatively, part of preparation included in item119 of the claim above	
134.		Court attendance before Judge Jitoko. Conference with Instructing solicitor and Kubs's solicitor on 15 March 2005
	40	$500		This is again subject to Court Record.	Court attendance claim – repeated item- see claim 132. conference - no evidence that this conference took place. No doc supplied to justify cost.	$100 allowed under item 18(a) on higher scale	
135.		Telephone attendance and email to client regarding accountants' evidence on 15 March 2005
	40	$250		As explained in Tab 134.	Same email as in claim 133. Reference G282-001 relates to Magic Mountain in any event - not this case. Administrative internal matters should not be charged to Defendant. Disallow. 	NA/NR
Alternatively, part of preparation included in item119 of the claim above	
136.		Meeting with Senior Counsel and drafting letter and emails to client on 17 March 2005	40	$1287		Tab 137 confirms that meetings were held and a substantive letter was drafted. 

	Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. Not a taxable item. No evidence of meeting with snr counsel. Neither Roger Taylor, Anselm Herman, Elsie Jione, Robert Fardell nor Mercury transcripts are clients. Attached documents are related to Acquisition Agreement Gilmour Rolls International. What this has to do with this case?	NA/NR
Alternatively, part of preparation included in item119 of the claim above	
137.		Court attendance on 17 March 2005
	40	$500		Subject to Court Record.

	No attendance noted on court file or High Court cause register. Disallow. No doc supplied to justify cost. False claim.	 No appearance on that date in court. 
NA	
138.		Drafting letter to Kubs's solicitor, research and telephone call to client on 18 March 2005
	40	$1138.50	$3305 (settlement of claim)	The disbursements of $3305 identified as settlement claim should be disallowed as the letter of withdrawal confirms that this amount has factored in the issue of costs. Tab 139 also attaches a substantive letter which was in response to a request by the Defendant solicitors for various documents.	letter to Kubs' solicitor – part of the document relates to matters in another case – Magic Mountain. Research and telephone – No doc supplied to justify claim. Not a taxable item. 
$3305 settlement of claim in Magic Mountain case – they paid the Defendant. Why pay it back? Effect: no settlement. Dishonest.	NA/NR
	
139.		Drafting opening submissions on 19 March 2005
	40	$990		Tab 141 (last page) contains affidavit evidence of thorough preparation. 	Would have allowed preparation fee - Item 19 But no doc supplied to justify cost. preparation already allowed in claim 46. Disallow. 	Part of preparation included in item119 of the claim above. NA/NR	
140.		Meeting with client and further trial preparation on 21 March 2005
	40	$1237.50		This was necessary as the trial dates were nearing.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Related to claim 140. Further preparation already allowed in claim 46. Brief of evidence shows coaching of witness! Disallow. 	Part of preparation included in item119 of the claim above.
NA/NR	
141.		Meeting with clients on 21 March 2005
	40	$250	$57.13 (telephone charges)
	As commented in Tab 141.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Related to claim 140. No doc supplied to justify cost.	Part of preparation included in item119 of the claim above. NA/NR	
142.		Chambers appearance and drafting undertaking on 22 March 2005
	20	$1089		Subject to Court Records. The evidence of drafting the undertaking is attached at Tab 143.
	OK as to Court attendance of one counsel (RF or MM). HCR Schedule 1 item 24(a) item 24(a). Document wrongly titled Notice to Produce and cited under wrong rule. Not a complex matter requiring snr counsel. Unsigned undertaking was not complex. In any event, undertaking related to sale and purchase agreement, not this case. 	This falls under 24(2) as motion was dated the same.
$300 	
143.		Client meeting on 22 March 2005	40	$82.50		As discussed in Tab 142.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Related to claim 140. No doc supplied to justify cost.	NA/NR	
144.		Trial attendance on 23 March 2005
	20	$600	$8.40 (transport to and from High Court)	Subject to Court Record, the trial started on this day. The attendance of the Queens Counsel was necessary. The disbursement costs sought is justifiable given the number of files that would have been taken to the Court. 	Ok as to trial, conceded on upper scale only for this claim – require details of length. Related to claim 140. Taxi to court is $4 return. No doc supplied to justify cost.	No evidence of trial on this date
NA/NR	
145.		Weekend attendances on client. Fax and telephone call from Fiji Times and email to Fiji TV on 29 March 2005
	40	$1250		Netani Rika (Fiji TV) ran a story on the proceedings which required clarification. TAB 146 attaches this e-mail.	Not a taxable item. Correspondence with Fiji Times not provided. Correspondence with media should not be visited on Defendant. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
146.		Drafting opening submissions. Meeting with Garvin, client and Senior Counsel. Call to Kubs's solicitor and reviewing transcript on 29 March 2005
	40	$1386		The amendment to opening submission is provided at Tab 147. 	drafting submissions - Repeat claim – see claim 140. Document is not as described. phone call to Kubs' solicitor - no evidence by ML that phone call was made. Disallow. 
meeting with Garvin – appears to be coaching witness. reviewing transcript - ML internal cost. Not a taxable item. No evidence that activity is relevant to action. – Private transcript is not Court sanctioned. Rolls Royce treatment. 	NA/NR
Alternatively, part of preparation included in item119 of the claim above	
147.		Conference with Senior Counsel regarding possibilities of speeding up trial on 30 March 2005
	40	$150		This was an essential consideration given that the Plaintiff's claim against the Defendants had been withdrawn.
 	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim. 	NA/NR
Part of preparation	
148.		Trial attendance, drafting and reviewing Court documents on 30 March 2005 	20	$1716	$25 (transport from Suva/Nausori Airport via Colo-I-Suva)
	Subject to Court Records the trial began on this date. The disbursements of $25 were for transporting Senior Counsel from Nausori Airport.
	Ok as to trial item 20 for counsel attendance – require details of length. taxi return from ML - $4. No doc supplied to justify cost.	$600 allowed
No evidence of other costs	
149.		Delivering documents to Court on 31 March 2005
	40	$100		The disbursements of $7.50 at item 151 should be rightfully provided at 150.
	ML internal cost- Related to claim 140. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA	
150.		Court attendance and preparation for trial on 31 March 2005	19	$300	$7.50 (transport to and from Court)	Subject to Court Records that the matter was heard on this day.
	OK as to trial – require details – related to claim 140. Taxi to court is $2. Item 19. No doc supplied to justify cost.	NA
Item 119 of the claim. repetitive claims	
151.		Meeting with, clients, client representatives and PwC representatives on 1 April 2005	40	$750		This was during the course of the trial and further consultations with all the witnesses together with the client and so it was justifiable.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Appears to relate to clerk taking doc to counsel in Court. Appears to be coaching witnesses. No doc supplied to justify claim. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
152.		Trial attendance and dealing with newspaper article issues in court on 1 April 2005 
	20	$600	$4.00 (transport to court)	Subject to Court Record the trial proceeded this day involving Senior Counsels and Queens Counsel of Australia. Evidence of dealing with newspaper article could be found on the second last page of Tab 155.	OK as to trial only - require details.
newspaper - ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim. 	$600 	
153.		Drafting closing submissions on 2 April 2005
	19	$300		The matter had at this stage proceeded half-way through the trial and drafting of closing submissions is factual.	Related to claim 140. No doc supplied to justify claim. Disallow. 	NA
No evidence.	
154.		Drafting letter and advice to client on 4 April 2005
	40	$400		The evidence of this work scope is provided at Tab 155.
	Document is not as described. ML internal cost. Not a taxable item. Related to claim 140 – Correspondence with Fiji Times is not related to court case. Appears ML is charging same job to 2 different files - reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA
	
155.		Review of issues on 4 April 2005
	40	$300		The attendances to this item would have required Senior Counsels' input. The sum is justified.
	ML internal cost. Not a taxable item. Related to claim 140. No doc supplied to justify cost.	NA	
156.		Trial attendance on 4 April 2005
	20	$600		Subject to Court Records, the trial proceeded on this date involving Senior Counsels.
	Ok as to trial – require details. No doc supplied to justify claim.	$600 	
157.		Attendance - telephone calls from the media related to the trial on 5 April 2005
	40	$400		The matter involved a substantive company in Fiji which had a global market. At that time it was estimated that Fiji Water was a globally valued product. The interest of the media locally and abroad was substantial and this required constant clarification/dissemination of information so that so that no adverse implications are caused by media reporting.
	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA	
158.		Trial attendance on 5 April 2005
	20	$600		The disbursements referred to in Tab 160 is a claim related to item 159. Subject to Court Records, the trial continued on this day.
	Ok as to trial – require details. No doc supplied to justify cost. 	$600	
159.		Meeting with PWC representatives regarding (witness) Gandhi evidence on 6 April 2005	40	$500	$6.00 (transport)	At Tab 160, Jenny Seeto's Witness Brief is attached. It also records the prospect of the witnesses inspecting the documents.	meeting - ML internal cost. Gandhi is not a witness. Jenny Seeto brief – coaching witness what to say! Reference to G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow claim and taxi as PWC is walking distance. Nothing said about urgency.	NA	
160.		Trial attendance, drafting subpoena and praecipes for Nitin Gandhi and Jerome Kado of PwC on 6 April 2005
	20	$600	$17.38 (transport)	The disbursements referred to in Tab 163 are a claim for filing fees (summons for abridgment of time). A further $17.38 is claimed for transport costs for attending to service of the documents.	OK as to trial attendance – require details. 
subpoena - No subpoena and praecipes noted on file or register or found on file or filing fees recorded. Disallow. No doc supplied to justify cost. Taxi fee is excessive. 	$600 	
161.		Telephone calls regarding Gandhi and affidavit on 7 April 2005
	40	$400		Gandhi was a witness, item 161 refers. 	telephone - ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No affidavit by Gandhi found in court file and High Court cause register. No doc supplied to justify claim. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
162.		Attendance at Chambers for application for abridgment of time under Summons and attending trial on 7 April 2005	20	$600	$90.00 (filling fees: Ex-parte $56.25, Praecipe (x2) $11.25 and Subpoena (x2) $22.50)	This is subject to Court Records.	ML mistake. I should not have to pay. No evidence of copies of documents on court file or in High Court cause register. No court attendance noted on court file. Disallow filing fees. No doc supplied to justify claim. False claim.	NA no evidence on record.
NR	
163.		Meeting with PwC representatives to review brief of evidence on 7 April 2005
	40	$247.50		Please see comments in Tabs 160 and 161.	Repeated claim – see claims 160 and 161. ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Preparation is already allowed – see claim 46. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA	
164.		Trial attendance and meeting with Nitin Gandhi on 8 April 2005	20	$600	$11.25 (filling fees)

$162 (accommodation at Holiday Inn for Roger Taylor)

$8.00 (transport to and from court)	Subject to Court Records. The disbursements referred to were necessary. Roger Taylor was a witness for the matter.	Ok as to trial – require details. No record of filing fees on court file. disallow accommodation – see comments in claim 170. No doc supplied to justify cost/filing fee.	$600 	
165.		Telephone call to client to provide update and emailing Senior Counsel on 11 April 2005	40	$148.50		Evidence of telephone call to Senior Counsel and updating Client is provided at Tab 166.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. See comment on Rolls Royce treatment in item 22. Email is not evidence of telephone call. No update visible from document supplied. Appears ML is charging same job to 2 different files - reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. Doc is repeated.	NA/NR	
166.		Telephone call to Senior Counsel for a follow up on 13 April 2005	40	$148.50		See comments on item 166.	Repeated claim to 166. No doc supplied to justify claim. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
167.		Email to client regarding Fiji Times "Offshore Profits" on 13 April 2005
	40	$150		This was a necessary exercise to safeguard the interests of the Plaintiffs.	Not a taxable item. Correspondence with media is not related to trial. Email is not as described. Appears ML is charging same job to 2 different files - reference G282-001 is for a different case. N271-Gen05 is not the file reference for this case. Disallow. 	NA/NR
Not a necessary cots 	
168.		Telephone calls to Senior Counsel and client. Drafting letter to High Court, call to Kubs's solicitor, arranging new dates and follow up, telephone calls to Nitin Gandhi and Bruce Sutton of KPMG on 14 April 2005
	40	$627		The matter had been adjourned as part heard awaiting recording evidence of expert witnesses. The dates scheduled were not suitable to the expert witness and this required urgent indulgence of the High Court. Furthermore, evidence of telephone calls is evidenced at Tab 169.	telephone to Snr counsel and client – plaintiff witness non-availability cannot be Defendant's fault. Rescheduling trial dates cannot be visited on Defendant. ML internal cost. Not a taxable item. Telephone to Kubs' solicitor - No evidence that phone call was made. No evidence of necessity for non witnesses – Nitin Gandhi and Bruce Sutton. In fact, Plaintiffs know that Sutton has already been approached as potential witness for Kubs, yet, with that knowledge, they still alk to Sutton, thus compromising his position as a witness for Kubs. Letter to High Court - No letter found in court file. Disallow. 	NA/NR
	
169.		Telephone call to client on 15 April 2005	40	$33	$5003.15 (accommodation for 19 days at JJ's on the Park at $240 per night and meals for 19 days $443.15) 	The disbursement of $5003.15 is with regards to providing accommodation to witnesses travelling from abroad. 	telephone - ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. meals - no provision in the HCR or the scales in the appendices for the award of a meal allowance: per Pain, J in Suresh Sushil & Anuradha Charan v Suva City Council [1994] HBM1173/84S 26 August 1994. accommodation – disallow for the same reason. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
170.		Following up on payment issues with CD Singh (Registry) on 18 April 2005
	40	$49.50	$17.78 (transport services)	This is subject to Court Records. Evidence of communication is referred to in the first page of Tab 172. 	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No notation on the court file of this activity. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
171.		Reworking brief, drafting plan for closing, various emails and telephone calls to CD Singh (Registry) on 19 April 2005	19	$300		Evidence of follow-ups is subject to Court Records.	reworking brief - ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Preparation already allowed – claim 46. emails and telephone to CD Singh - No emails or record of telephone calls found in the court file. No evidence of actual amendments to brief shown, fax to CD Singh is not an email. Brief of Jenny Seeto – amending witness' evidence of what to say based on transcript of other witness' evidence! Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Email from Taylor dated 19 April 2005 appears to relate to Rolls acquisition. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
172.		Research on exemplary damages and telephone call to Roger Taylor (expert). Drafting closing submissions on 20 April 2005
	40	$693		Claim for exemplary damages was made by the Defendants without any concrete basis. Research and clarification on this point alone was necessary.	Research – preparation is already allowed – claim 46. ML internal cost - Not taxable item.
phone to witness – what for? Trial has concluded. No doc supplied to justify any part of claim.	NA/NR
	
173.		Research on exemplary damages cases on 21 April 2005	40	$214.50		Refer to item 173.	Not taxable item. Repeat claim – see claim 173. No doc supplied to justify claim. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
174.		Drafting emails to Garvin (witness) and Senior Counsel on 22 April 2005
	40	$49.50		The matter was obviously part heard and therefore, consultations with witnesses was on-going.	email to snr counsel - Not taxable item.
email to witness - what for? Trial has concluded. In any event, Emails to QC personal issues not entirely related to case. There, MM discounts starting to write closing submissions, thus giving a lie to claim 173. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
175.		Teleconference with client and Senior Counsel. Email to Senior Counsel on 26 April 2005
	40	$346.50		See comments on item 175. Evidence is attached at Tab 176.	Sending bill to client or sending reimbursement to witness should be ML internal cost. Not a taxable item. No interim bill attached. Fax to Taylor has no attachments. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR 
No evidence	
176.		Telephone calls and photocopying on 26 April 2005
	40	$50		The telephone call made is consistent medium to seek instructions and to report to Client. 	telephone calls – to whom? ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. photocopying – no specifics on relevance of this item to the action. No doc supplied to justify claim. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
177.		Telephone call to Nitin Gandhi (witness) on 2 May 2005
	40	$16.50		Subject to Court Records that Nitin Gandhi was a witness and consultations when necessary.	ML internal cost- Gandhi is not a witness. No doc supplied to justify claim. Disallow. 	NA/NR
No evidence to support	
178.		Letter to client on 05 May 2005	40	$132		Refer to comments on item 177.	The letter referred to is for payment of an invoice. That should be ML internal cost. Not a taxable item to be visited on Defendant. Where is the invoice? See comment on Rolls Royce treatment in claim 22. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
179.		Drafting emails to client and Senior Counsel and updating plan on 9 May 2005
	40	$99		Evidence of communications to Client is attached. 	Emails to QC and Doug Carlson - merely to say closing submissions are not ready! Or to send a bill - ML internal cost. Not a taxable item. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	$10 allowed under item 40 App4	
180.		Drafting email to client for a follow up on witness costs allocation information on 10 May 2005
	40	$165	$4680 (accommodation and meals at Holiday Inn)	The disbursements and meals in the sum of $4680 was to accommodate Witnesses (Dharmesh Hiralal and Katherine). Documentary evidence is attached at Tab 180.	email, follow up on costs allocation information to pay a bill - ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Reserve Bank blank form included. Why? As a result not clear what is being paid. Document is not as described. Meal allowance - Costs not a taxable item. No provision in the HCR or the scales in the appendices for the award of a meal allowance: per Pain, J in Suresh Sushil & Anuradha Charan v Suva City Council [1994] HBM1173/84S 26 August 1994. accommodation - disallow for the same reason. Letter to client is sent on 9 May 2005, not 10 May 2005. Wrong document supplied. 
Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR
No need of overseas counsel.	
181.		Researching on evidence for closing on 31 May 2005
	19	$300		Although the matter remained part heard, substantive closing submissions (subject to Court Records) was prepared. The decision of the Court could decide the fate of the Parties pertaining to a Company which had substantial assets within the vicinity of $70 million.	Not taxable item. No doc supplied to justify cost. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
182.		Drafting closing submissions on 1 June 2005
	19	$300		The drafting of closing submissions required articulation, succinct analysis of evidence and exhaustive research. The case before Justice Jitoko between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants was of complex nature. It also required an investigative approach as matters related to a past period of time. The time taken for this exercise was justifiable. Documentary evidence of this exercise is attached.	Document is not as described. Doc shows payment of invoices by Wakaya, not P1. ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Submissions - If preparation, already allowed – see claim 46. No draft submissions attached as evidence. Email discusses holiday plans and not this case. Why charge to Kubs? Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	$300.	
183.		Drafting closing submissions on 2 June 2005
	19	$300		Please see comments on item 183.	Repeated entry. No doc supplied to justify claim.	Allowed for a special case cost in 182 above. 
NA
Double Claim	
184.		Researching case law on 3 June 2005
	19	$300		Please see comments on item 183.	ML internal cost. Not a taxable item. If preparation, already allowed – see claim 46. No doc supplied to justify cost.	Allowed for a special case cost in 182 above	
185.		Drafting closing submissions on 14 June 2005
	19	$300		Please see comments on item 183.	Repeated entry. No doc supplied to justify claim.	Allowed for a special case cost in 182 above	
186.		Drafting closing submissions on 15 June 2005
	19	$300		Please see comments on item 183.	Repeated entry. No doc supplied to justify claim.	Allowed for a special case cost in 182 above	
187.		Drafting closing submissions on 16 June 2005	19	$300		Please see comments on item 183.	Repeated entry. No doc supplied to justify claim.	Allowed for a special case cost in 182 above	
188.		Drafting closing submissions on 17 June 2005	19	$300		Please see comments on item 183.	Repeated entry. No doc supplied to justify claim.	Allowed for a special case cost in 182 above	
189.		Drafting closing submissions on 20 June 2005	19	$300		Please see comments on item 183.	Repeated entry. No doc supplied to justify claim.	Allowed for a special case cost in 182 above	
190.		Drafting closing submissions on 21 June 2005	19	$300		Please see comments on item 183.	No entry. Disallow. No doc supplied to justify claim.	Allowed for a special case cost in 182 above	
191.		Research on restitution and damages arising from duress on 22 June 2005
	40	$858		Please see comments on item 183. Documentary evidence of some research is attached to Tab 192.	No entry in original bill of costs. Plaintiff counsel only amended when this was flagged to their attention. Research on contracts and duress are not for this case. Disallow.	Allowed for a special case cost in 182 above	
192.		Drafting closing submissions on 23 June 2005
	19	$300		Please see comments on item 183.	No entry in original bill of costs. Plaintiff counsel only amended when this was flagged to their attention. Disallow. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR
 There are no documents to support. Tab 192 is a photo copy of part of a legal text book is not a submission.	
193.		Drafting closing submissions, telephone call to Senior Counsel on 28 June 2005
	40	$412.50		Please see comments on item 183. Furthermore, the draft submissions required input and guidance of the Senior Counsel based in Australia.	No entry in original bill of costs. Plaintiff counsel only amended when this was flagged to their attention. Disallow. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR
 There are no documents to support	
194.		Drafting closing submissions on 29 June 2005
	19	$300		Please see comments on item 183.	No entry in original bill of costs. Plaintiff counsel only amended when this was flagged to their attention. Disallow. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR
There are no documents to support	
195.		Draft closing submissions on 30 June 2005
	19	$300		Please see comments on item 183.	No entry in original bill of costs. Plaintiff counsel only amended when this was flagged to their attention. Disallow. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR
There are no documents to support .	
196.		Preparing advice on 30 June 2005
	40	$200		The documentary evidence of this exercise is attached as Tab 197.	No entry in original bill of costs. Plaintiff counsel only amended when this was flagged to their attention. Disallow. Internal ML email giving jnr counsel advice on how to draft closing submissions should not be visited on Defendant. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	There are no documents to support

NA/NR.	
197.		Research on restitution vs. damages on 4 July 2005
	40	$99		This research was necessary to answer the claims of the Defendants. Disbursements of $158.66 are consistent with the research conducted through Auckland District law Society.	No entry in original bill of costs. Plaintiff counsel only amended when this was flagged to their attention. Disallow. No doc supplied to justify claim.	All relate to closing submission allowed in item 200 below.

Double Claim	
198.		Reviewing case law on tort, economic duress on 5 July 2005	40	$49.50	$158.66 (WBC draft Auckland District Law Society- legal research)
	Please refer to comments on item 198. 	No entry in original bill of costs. Plaintiff counsel only amended when this was flagged to their attention. No doc supplied to justify claim or costs. Disallow. 	All relate to closing submission allowed in item 200 below.
Double claim.	
199.		Drafting closing submissions on 7 July 2005
	40	$16.50		Please refer to comments on item 183.	No entry in original bill of costs. Plaintiff counsel only amended when this was flagged to their attention. Disallow. No doc supplied to justify claim.	All relate to closing submission allowed in item 200 below	
200.		Editing closing submissions on 11 July 2005	19	$300		Please refer to comments on item 183. This is justifiable given that comments from Senior Counsel needed to be integrated in the draft submissions.	No entry in original bill of costs. Plaintiff counsel only amended when this was flagged to their attention. Disallow. No doc supplied to justify claim.	Wrong item on the scale. Item 19 is cost awarded for preparing for trial and not after trial. Allowed $200 under item 40 for written submission.	
201.		Researching Torts issues on 12 July 2005	40	$396		Please refer to comments on item 198.	No entry in original bill of costs. Plaintiff counsel only amended when this was flagged to their attention. Document is not as described but correspondence between parties. Disallow. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA	
202.		Drafting emails to Senior Counsel and Bruce Sutton of KPMG. Telephone call to client representative on 13 July 2005
	40	$49.50		Evidence of this communication is enclosed at Tab 203.	No entry in original bill of costs. Plaintiff counsel only amended when this was flagged to their attention. Emails to discuss how to position their case at trial! Speaking to a potential witness from the other party! MM is not snr counsel. MM email of 13 July 2005 discusses tax evasion strategy! Cannot reward Plaintiff for breaking the law. Disallow	NA/NR	
203.	 	Advice to client on 14 July 2005	40	$66		The advice enclosing closing submissions is attached at Tab 204. The draft closing submission forwarded to Clients at this stage was 39 pages long.	No entry in original bill of costs. Plaintiff counsel only amended when this was flagged to their attention. Disallow. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA.
 A matter relating to closing submission already dealt.	
204.		Reviewing email from Senior Counsel on 15 July 2005	40	$16.50		Evidence of communication from Expert Witness is attached. 	No entry in original bill of costs. Plaintiff counsel only amended when this was flagged to their attention. Bruce Sutton is potential witness for J Kubs', not snr counsel. Here, ML is knowingly talking to Kubs' witness to extract information. Disallow. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA
Not reasonably incurred.	
205.		Reading and forwarding letter from Kubs's solicitor regarding further discovery on 18 July 2005
	40	$33		Evidence of communications is attached.	No entry in original bill of costs. Plaintiff counsel only amended when this was flagged to their attention. Disallow. Letter from Kubs solicitor but dated 17 July, not 18 July 2005. 	NA

Double Claim	
206.		Conference call with Senior Counsel on 18 July 2005	40	$181.50		This is consistent and justifiable given that Senior Counsel was based in Australia.	No entry in original bill of costs. Plaintiff counsel only amended when this was flagged to their attention. Disallow. No doc supplied to justify claim.	Not allowed as above.	
207.		Conference call with Senior Counsel on 19 July 2005 
	40	$250		Please see comments in item 207.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim. 	NA/NR	
208.		Drafting email to client regarding letter from Kubs's solicitors on 20 July 2005
	40	$82.50		The letter from Kub's Solicitors was 7 pages long and this needed to be forwarded and explained to Clients. 	No email supplied as evidence that it was sent. Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR.	
209.		Drafting letter in reply to Kubs's solicitors requiring further discovery on 21 July 2005
	40	$330		A reply to the letter of Kub's Solicitor required a sanction of Clients instructions and guidance and input of Senior Counsel based overseas. 	No letter supplied by ML as evidence that letter was sent. Repeated entry – see claim 209. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR
 No evidence. 	
210.		Reviewing email from Senior Counsel, drafting letter to Kubs's solicitors. Reviewing memo from Senior Counsel on remedies on 28 July 2005
	40	$165		Please see comments in item 210.	No letter supplied by ML as evidence that letter was sent. Repeated entry – see claims 209, 210. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR
 	
211.		Reviewing letter from Kubs's solicitor and forwarding to client and Senior Counsel on 1 August 2005
	40	$82.50		Please see comments in item 210.	Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim. 	NA/NR	
212.		Drafting email to Senior Counsel on 2 August 2005	40	$33		Please see comments in item 210.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. One line email to Richard Naidu constitutes ordinary correspondence between parties. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
213.		Telephone call to Senior Counsel regarding various strategy issues on 4 August 2005
	40	$148.50		A necessary requirement given the complexity of the case and expert witnesses involved.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Preparation already allowed – see claim 46. No doc supplied to justify claim. 	NA/NR.	
214.		Conference call with Senior Counsel regarding the response from the Kubs's solicitor on 4 August 2005
	40	$250		Please see comments in item 210. 	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim. 	NA/NR	
215.		Drafting letter in reply to Kubs's solicitor on 5 August 2005
	40	$379.50		Please see comments in item 210. The evidence of reply is attached.	Reference G282-001 and L332-002 are for different cases – TM search. Disallow. Final submission is extraneous to description. 	 $100 
under item 40 App4	
216.		Organising travel and accommodation for Senior Counsel on 7 August 2005
	40	$33		The matter was part heard as stipulated earlier. The Queens Counsel needed to appear to complete the matter and prepare accordingly.	ML internal cost. No provision in the scale as a taxable item to organize accommodation and travel. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
217.		Providing update to client on 12 August 2005	40	$250		This was consistent with the approach required in this matter. the documentary evidence of correspondences between parties and Client is attached at Tab 218.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
218.		Telephone call to Senior Counsel and email to client on 29 August 2005	40	$49.50		This was with regards to the discovery of further documents. Email evidence is attached at Tab 219.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No docs supplied to justify cost. No evidence telephone call. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
219.		Drafting letter to Kubs's solicitors and email to Senior Counsel on 30 August 2005
	40	$330		Email evidence is attached at Tab 220. The second and third page encloses faxed copy of response to Defendant Solicitor.	Repeated entry. If allowed – see claim 212 – Invoice from QC is Rolls Royce treatment. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. See comment in claim 22 for Rolls Royce. Duplicate documents supplied. Forwarded to P2 not P1 who paid. Nitin was never a witness in this case.	NA/NR. No evidence of letter only 3 line email. 
	
220.		Fax to Kubs's solicitor and email to Senior Counsel on 2 September 2005
	40	$33		Letter faxed to Defendant Solicitor is attached. 	fax - no fax supplied as evidence by ML that such that fax call was sent. Repeated entry as claim 220. Nitin Gandhi never appeared in court as a witness Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
221.		Email to Senior Counsel and client on 5 September 2005	40	$82.50		Email evidence is attached. 	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. Plaintiff's change of name should not be visited on Kubs. 	NA/NR	
222.		Internal discussion on legal issues on 6 September 2005	40	$55		Various emails are also attached at Tab 222 between Senior Counsel from Australia, Ms. Moody (based in Fiji) and Clients based in USA.
	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Where's filenote? No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
223.		Drafting summons for directions on expert evidence on 6 September 2005
	9	$50		As stipulated earlier, the matter was part heard awaiting evidence of Expert Witness. Earlier correspondences with the High Court Registry and as between Counsels required formalising of new dates on account of unavailability of witness. The formalisation of directions became apparent and necessary.
	No summons for directions on court file. Item 9 but allow $25 if copy can be produced. No doc supplied to justify claim. Disallow 	 No such summons on the record. No evidence produced.
NA/NR	
224.		Edits to summons for directions on 6 September 2005
	40	$300		Please refer to comments on item 224.	Unnecessary. No need to pay for ML inefficiencies. Disallow. No doc supplied to justify cost. Amended Bill of Costs filed on 27 May 2010.	NA/NR	
225.		Preparing summons for filing and telephone call High Court (Eroni) on 7 September 2005
	9	$50		Please refer to comments on item 224.	Unnecessary. No need to pay for ML inefficiencies. According to cause register and court file no summons filed on 7 September. No notation on court file of telephone. Disallow. No doc supplied to justify cost.	NA/NR	
226.		Preparing Summons for Directions on 8 September 2005
	9	$50		Please refer to comments on item 224.	Repeated entry. Disallow. No doc supplied to justify cost.	NA/NR	
227.		Amending closing submissions and fax to Kubs's solicitor on 9 September 2005
	19	$300		The evolution of the matter and in light of interlocutory applications between Parties rendered it necessary to evaluate closing submissions and the case in general.	closing submissions – no evidence. fax to Kubs' solicitor - No doc supplied to justify cost. 	 Allowed for closing submission included this cost.
NA/NR	
228.		Summons for Directions, reporting and follow up on 12 September 2005
	9	$50		Subject to Court Records and comments in item 224, the summons for directions was files in this matter.	Repeated entry- see claim 224. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
229.		Court attendance with instructing Solicitor on 12 September 2005
	20	$300		The verification of court attendance is subject to Court Records.	Claim 224 is inclusive of attendance. No doc supplied to justify claim.	 No evidence on record.
NA/NR	
230.		Email to Roger Taylor (expert) on 13 September 2005
	40	$33		Evidence of communication between expert witness, Roger Taylor is attached at Tab 231.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Email to Roger Taylor instructs Taylor how to give his report – coaching! Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
231.		Meeting with client representative on 13 September 2005
	40	$400		No minutes attached, however, such exercise would have been necessary to advice client of steps taken in this matter.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
232.		Drafting email to Robert Taylor (expert) and Senior Counsel attaching revised reply to Brendan Lyne (Kubs's expert) on 16 September 2005
	40	$750		The mode of communication via email is consistent throughout the matter as Counsels and Clients, as well as Expert Witness was based in different overseas countries. 	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Correspondence with QC and Roger Taylor highlights that they were massaging evidence. What does charming Mr Gilmour by QC have to do with this case? Why should Kubs have to pay for this comment? Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
233.		Meeting with Senior Counsel on 21 September 2005
	40	$250		Senior Counsel was to enter court appearance. 	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim. 	NA/NR	
234.		Conference call with Senior Counsel and client regarding strategy for discovery. Drafting affidavit for Sharon Morris and preparing chart of discovery position on 21 September 2005
 	40	$940.50		The Senior Counsel needed to correspond with Client based in USA seeking instructions and reporting.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No copy of Affidavit of Sharon Morris on court file. No doc supplied to justify cost.	NA/NR	
235.		Telephone call to client and email to client on 22 September 2005	40	$82.50		Evidence of this exercise is attached at Tab 236.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Email to client is about payment of their QC's fees. No evidence of telephone call. Why should payment of invoice be cast on Kubs? See comment on Rolls Royce treatment in claim 22. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
236.		Drafting closing submissions on 26 September 2005
	20	$300		This exercise has been taken previously. The complexity of the matter required detailed analysis. 	Repeated entry. Does not relate to item 20 therefore cannot claim at its scale. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA
Double Claim	
237.		Court attendance - hearing for summons for directions and motion for discovery, reporting and future strategy on 27 September 2005	20	$300		Subject to Court Records.	No attendance noted on court file or cause register although Ex-Tempore Ruling by Justice Jitoko is given. 	Item 20 is for attendance in trial not for summons. 
NA/NR	
238.		Court attendance and drafting report on 27 September 2005
	20	$300		After the court attendance and obtaining extempore ruling, a detailed report to Clients was necessary to advice on the ruling and compliance. 	Repeated entry. No attendance noted on court file or cause register. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR
Not item 20 cost.	
239.		Meeting with Senior Counsel on 27 September 2005
	40	$250		This exercise was necessary for evaluation of the matter after extempore ruling.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify cost. 	NA/NR	
240.		Telephone call to client and drafting Summons and affidavit for split trial on 28 September 2005
	9	$50		It is consistent with the mode of communication between Counsel and Clients based in USA and this is apparent throughout the matter. 	OK as to summons for split trial. Need a copy as none in court file – item 9. No doc supplied to justify claim.	 $50 for summons . 	
241.		Service of documents on 29 September 2005
	40	$100		Items 242 and 243 are justifiable and the summons and affidavit filed are subject to Court Records. The disbursements of $15.50 referred as transport services could possibly be costs for service of documents.	Not a taxable item. See item 9 preparation, drafting is inclusive of service. No doc supplied to justify cost.	NA	
242.		Finalising and filing summons for split trial. Drafting summons for variation, stay and affidavit in support. Reviewing transcript for final submissions on 29 September 2005	9	$50	$56.25 (filing fees)	Please refer to comments in item 242.	Unnecessary. ML mistake. Herman already predicated on question of liability and quantum. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
243.		Reviewing transcript on 30 September 2005
	40	$610.50	$16.55 (Auckland District Law society)	The transcript is attached which is approximately 71pages thick. The disbursements of $12 are referred to in item 246.	Not a taxable item. Xm-in-chief of J. Kubs. No doc supplied to justify costs – Auckland DLS. Transcript provided is for 30 March 2005 not 30 September 2005.	NA/NR	
244.		Reviewing transcript on 30 September 2005
	40	$250	$15.50 (transport services)	Please refer to comments on item 244.	Repeated entry. Same as 244. Disallow. No doc supplied to justify costs. 	NA/NR	
245.		Telephone call to client and PwC. Drafting submissions on split trial on 3 October 2005
	40	$808.50	$12.00 (payment to Fiji TV for transcripts) 	The drafting of submissions and calls made to Clients are justifiable and anticipatory given that the hearing of an interlocutory matter was scheduled for 4 October, 2005. 	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim or costs for transcript. Luxury item.	NA/NR	
246.		Drafting, finalising skeleton of arguments in support of summons to split trial and attending hearing on 4 October 2005
	20	$600		The finalisation and preparation of submissions and like documents are logical and common practice. The sum claimed is justifiable.	No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA Item 20 App4 does not apply.	
247.		Finalising submissions, attending hearing of application to split trial, reporting and closing submissions on 4 October 2005
	19	$300		Subject to Court Records. Please refer to comments in item 248.	Repeated item – see claim 247. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
248.		Telephone call to PwC and faxing with annexed subpoena law on 5 October 2005

	40	$231		Evidence of this exercise is attached at Tab 249. Given the nature of the documents, telephone calls and meetings would have been necessary.	Unnecessary. Fax to PWC does not show subpoena was stamped. 	NA/NR	
249.		Telephone call to PwC, meeting with clients on 6 October 2005
	40	$280.50		Please refer to comments in item 249.	ML internal cost. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
250.		Telephone call to client on 7 October 2005
	40	$66		Telephone calls were a consistent feature in this matter and were regularly used for the purposes of obtaining instructions and/or reporting to Clients.	ML internal cost. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR
No justification of the amount	
251.		Drafting closing submissions on 10 October 2005

	19	$300		Given the on-going research and changing work scope due to extempore rulings, discoveries and receipt of instructions. The attendances to continued drafting of closing submissions was necessary.	Repeated entry – see 237, 248. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR
Allowed in the item above(199)	
252.		Finalising closing submissions on 11 October 2005
	19	$300		Please see comments in item 252.	Repeated entry. No doc supplied to justify claim. No submissions filed in Court.	NA 
There cannot be separate cost for finishing. Without finishing there is no submission.	
253.		Drafting submissions for trial, attending trial, amending submissions and meeting with clients in 12 October 2005
	20	$600		Subject to Court Records and furthermore with regards to drafting submissions, please see comments in item 252.	Repeated entry- see 237, 248, 252. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR
Allowed earlier	
254.		Trial attendance on 13 October 2005
	20	$600		Subject to Court Records.	Ok as to court attendance. No trial. Item 24(a). No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA
No record on record	
255.		Filing and service of summons and affidavit on 14 October 2005
	40	$100	$56.25 (filing fees)	Subject to Court Records.	No doc supplied to justify claim. 	NA
No such record 	
256.		Follow up and letters to High Court on 14 October 2005
	40	$49.50		Documentary evidence is attached as Tab 257.
	Unnecessary – not found on court file. Only 1 short letter to High Court. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA
Not a reasonable expense	
257.		Meeting with client on 14 October 2005
	40	$250		The constant reporting was a necessary element in the matter given the complexity and the recent developments in the matter.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR
	
258.		Follow up with Court on 19 October 2005
	40	$33		Please see comments in item 257.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
259.		Reviewing Kubs summons on 23 October 2005
	9	$50		Another interlocutory application which required careful consideration.
	No evidence of summons filed on court file or cause register. Must be a reference to the Magic Mountain case. Disallow. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA 
There is no evidence on record	
260.		Drafting submissions for leave and considering issues on 24 October 2005
	40	$264		This event overlapped with items 260, 262 and 263.	Unnecessary. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
261.		Reviewing draft skeleton submissions relating to Kubs's leave application on 25 October 2005
	40	$800		Please see comments in items 260 and 261.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Unnecessary. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
262.		Further review and consideration of issues o Kubs's leave application on 26 October 2005
	40	$33		Please see comments in items 260 and 261.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Unnecessary. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
263.		Telephone call to client on 26 October 2005
	40	$160		This has been consistent throughout the matter as the Client was based in USA.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR
No evidence to support the amount	
264.		Court attendance, reporting and discussion with client on 27 October 2005
	20	$600		Subject to Court Records. The attendances when necessary to be reported and discussed fully with Clients. Documentary evidence is attached.	Ok as to court attendance. Item 24(b). No docs supplied to justify claim. 	NA/NR
No evidence on record	
265.		Preparing for Court attendance and attending court on 27 October 2005
	20	$600		This overlaps with item 265 and would have been before the court attendance. 	Not a taxable item as preparation is covered by court attendance already claimed as claim 265. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR 
No evidence	
266.		Administration matters on 10 November 2005	40	$66	$954.15 (accommodation and meals at JJ's on the Park 10.10.05-13.10.05
	The disbursements referred to in this item relates to trial attendance on 13 October 2005 by Senior Counsel based in Australia. Documentary evidence is attached.	Administration is not a taxable item. no provision in the HCR or the scales in the appendices for the award of a meal allowance: per Pain, J in Suresh Sushil & Anuradha Charan v Suva City Council [1994] HBM1173/84S 26 August 1994. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Document shows final invoice which should not be charged to Kubs. Disallow. 	NA/NR
	
267.		Email to client on 16 November 2005	40	$16.50		With regards to items 268 to 272, we respectfully submit that the reporting of the matters through telephone calls and emails were consistent and the only mode of reporting in the circumstances. The Clients were based in USA and given the complexity of the matter together with the ramifications attached, it was prudent and necessary to continuously engage and discuss matters with Clients. Furthermore, this mode also assisted Counsel to take instructions from Clients after explaining matters as it transpired in Fiji.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR
	
268.		Telephone call to client and reporting to Senior Counsel on 9 December 2005
	40	$82.50		See comments in item 268.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Report relates to Magic Mountain Reference G282-001 which was withdrawn in any event - not this case. Document attached is trying to change evidence to show perjury, when case is weak. Not only in the interests of justice but ML should be penalized. What is the purpose of Q & A? Disallow. 	NA	
269.		Email to client on 12 December 2005
	40	$66		See comments in item 268.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
270.		Telephone call to client on 26 January 2006

	40	$92.05		See comments in item 268.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
271.		Telephone call to client and email on 27 September 2006
	40	$166.50		Please see comments in item 268.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
272.		Preparing admission documents for Senior Counsel on 31 January 2006
	40	$55.50		Documentary evidence is attached at Tab 274. 	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim. 	NA/NR	
273.		Reviewing email on 6 February 2006
	40	$18.50		Documentary evidence is attached at Tab 274.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Description fails to give particularity whether relevant to this case. Email with Stephen Kos but no attachment. Why do we need 2 QCs? See comment on Rolls Royce treatment in claim 22. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
274.		Drafting email on 9 February 2006
	40	$18.50		Documentary evidence is attached at Tab 275.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Email to Stephen Kos is dated 10 Feb, not 9 Feb 2006. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
275.		Email to client on 14 February 2006
	40	$37		Documentary evidence is attached at Tab 276.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Docs 276 and 277 are similar. Email is about getting new counsel. Why do we need 2 QCs? See comments in claim 22 for Rolls Royce treatment. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
276.		Telephone call and email to client on 15 February 2006
	40	$55.50		Documentary evidence is attached at Tab 277.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No evidence of telephone call made, only intention to call is shown. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
277.		Conference call with client on 17 February 2006	40	$350		See comments at item 268.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No docs supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
278.		Conference call with client on 17 February 2006 	40	$129.50		See comments at item 268.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No docs supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
279.		Redrafting temporary admission documents pursuant to changes in law and policy on 13 March 2006	40	$185		Documentary evidence is attached at Tab 280.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Email on amendment to admission docs, petition and various annexures but nothing to show actual amendments. Who is Stephen Kos and what does he have to do in present case? He never appeared in this case. Why do we need 2 QCs? See comments in claim 22 for Rolls Royce treatment. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
280.		Accounts administration on 14 March 2006
	40	$37		Documentary evidence is attached at Tab 281.	ML internal cost. Unnecessary. No need to pay for ML inefficiencies – Bill paid by Fiji Water – see claim 282. Costs from Stephen Kos is unnecessary as he never appeared in the case. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
281.		Arranging payment for admission and email to client on 20 March 2006	40	$18.50		Documentary evidence is attached at Tab 282.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Why should arranging payment and admission, comments about elections, bill of costs and hearing from Jitoko be charged to Kubs? Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. Stephen Kos never appeared in this case. Document in 282 is the same document in 281. Repeated claim. 	No evidence.
NA/NR	
282.		Telephone call to Senior Counsel on 12 April 2006
	40	$55.50		This has been consistent throughout the matter where Senior Counsels are based overseas.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA	
283.		Email to client on 19 April 2006
	40	$18.50		Please see comments on item 268.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Wakaya is not party to the action. 	NA	
284.		Meeting with client on 28 April 2006
	40	$129.50		No minutes attached for these meetings. These are Solicitor-Client privilege meetings for the purposes of obtaining instructions. 	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA
These costs are included in the preparation for trial allowed earlier.	
285.		Meeting with client on 28 April 2006	40	$250		Please see comments on item 285.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
286.		Reviewing affidavits from overseas counsel on 2 May 2006
	40	$37		No documentary evidence attached.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Court file and Cause Register show that no other affidavits were filed after 26 October 2005. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA/NR	
287.		Meeting with client on 21 July 2006
	40	$100		Please see comments on item 268.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify cost.	NA/NR	
288.		Responding to client queries on 1 August 2006
	40	$18.50		Please see comments on item 268. Documentary evidence is attached at Tab 289.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Email shows ML is trying to meet the Judge privately in Chambers, which leads to possibility of interference with pending judgment, putting pressure on judge to write Judgment. How much should Kubs have to pay for this unethical conduct which is not conducted in open court? Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. Document doesn't say what date they saw each other for what relevant action. Scurrilous.	NA/NR	
289.		Email to client and Court attendance on 2 August 2006
	40	$400		Subject to Court Records. The charge out rate of Senior Counsel has increased.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No evidence of court attendance on court file or cause register. Wakaya title is not related to this case. Email suggests putting pressure on judge to write Judgment, even on a courtesy call!	NA/NR	
290.		Email to client on 4 August 2006
	40	$40		Documentary evidence is attached at Tab 291.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Email suggests Jon Apted going to Judge Jitoko to fix the judgment against Kubs and Kubs is to pay for the outcome. Wrong. What is report from Sydney morning Herald to do with this case?	NA/NR	
291.		Email to client providing information regarding judgment on 17 October 2006	40	$80		Documentary evidence is attached at Tab 292.	Correspondence in the same vein as claim 291. No judgment noted on court file on 17 October 2006. Here, ML try to put improper pressure on Judge in Chambers to write judgment in a certain way based on "some investment possibilities". ML lawyer acknowledges this. ML does not invite Defendant counsel to attend with him in Chambers. The sensitivity of the note is "Confidential" and even the lawyer attending knew he was doing it in the wrong manner. Why should Kubs pay for ML trying to fix a judgment? Plaintiffs should be penalized for this.	NA/NR	
292.		Email to client on 26 October 2006
	40	$80		Documentary evidence is attached at Tab 293.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Not enough description to determine what relevance document might have. Document seems to suggest putting improper pressure on Judge to write his Judgment. 	NA/NR	
293.		Reviewing email from client and replying to email on 1 November 2006
	40	$40		Documentary evidence is attached at Tab 294.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. ML succeed in talking to Judge privately in Chambers, putting improper pressure on Judge! Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
294.		Letter to the High Court on 9 November 2006
	40	$111		Documentary evidence is attached at Tab 295.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Letter to High Court given but dated 10 not 9 Nov 2006. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA
Not a reasonable expense as writing letters to court is not a taxable item.	
295.		Telephone attendance and email to client on 14 November 2006
	40	$120		Documentary evidence is attached at Tab 296.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Description is too vague to determine whether relevant to this case. Email suggests improper pressure was not sanctioned by the Court. The Court expresses its displeasure. ML should be penalized, not rewarded with costs! 	NA/NR	
296.		Email to client regarding judgment on 22 December 2006
	40	$40		Please see comments on item 268.	ML advising client- not a taxable item. Why should Kubs pay? No judgment noted on court file on 22 December 2006.	NA/NR	
297.		Telephone call to High Court regarding delivery of judgment on 26 January 2007
	40	$20		Please see comments on item 268.	ML advising client- why should I pay? No judgment noted on court file on 26 January 2007. No doc supplied to justify cost.	NA/NR	
298.		Telephone call to client and on 29 January 2007
	40	$120		Please see comments on item 268.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify cost.	NA/NR	
299.		Email to client on 29 January 2007
	40	$150		Documentary evidence is attached at Tab 300.	ML internal cost- Not a taxable item. Email is about how to arrange a story for the media, and Plaintiff expects Kubs to pay! Description is very vague and does not say it is relevant to this case. Reference G282-001 is for a different case. Disallow. 	NA/NR	
300.		Court attendance for collection of judgment, reporting and discussing judgment with client on 30 January 2007	40	$640		Subject to Court Records. The judgment was delivered on 30 January, 2007.	OK to court attendance. No doc supplied to justify claim.	 $50 for appearance for collection of the judgment only.	
301.		Review judgement and telephone call to client on 30 January 2007
	40	$600		This is an important and necessary step undertaken to explain and advice the ramifications of the decision.	Not a taxable item. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA	
302.		Attending judgment with Instructing Solicitor on 30 January 2007	20	$600		Please see comments on item 301.	Repeated item – see claim 301. No doc supplied to justify claim.	NA	
303.		Overseas council fees (Queens Council) for:

a.	general attendances, advice and correspondence
b.	trial preparation
c.	appearing as senior counsel on 22-23 March, 30 March-1 April and 4-8 April 2005
d.	appearing as senior counsel on 12-13 October 2005	40		$217,025.06

	This disbursement is not challenged or disputed by the Defendant's Counsel. 

For evidence of payment please refer to second last page of Tab 179 and the second page of Tab 267.		NA
Not indemnity cost.
There is no justification in retaining a QC as the Defendant's case was very weak and Plaintiff knew it. Not a reasonable expense.	

CONCLUSION

33.	The two actions were not consolidated but tried simultaneously and costs cannot be separated, all parties agreed for this method at trial The Plaintiffs' claim for breach of restraint and damages could not proceed to hearing due to lack of evidence, and there were communications to that effect. If that was the only issue the Defendant would have obtained substantial sum from the Plaintiffs. The Defendant, J. Kubs filed a second amended counterclaim for economic duress and his ex-wife filed a separate action for the economic duress. The Plaintiff knew that these claims were doomed to fail as much as the Plaintiff's claim for alleged breach of contract by J. Kubs. The Plaintiffs timely withdrawal of their claim after realizing the strength of their claim saved costs for them. They also realized the Defendants' claims for economic duress could not succeed. The Plaintiffs had even offered $100,000 to the Defendants, if they were willing to withdraw their claims, but this offer was turned down. So, the actions proceeded to hearing on counterclaim of economic duress in HBC 655 of 1998 and claim for economic duress by M. Kubs in HBC 239 of 2003. At the hearing a split trial was ordered despite the objections from the Defendants. The court held that Defendants had failed to establish liability for claims against Plaintiffs for economic duress. Tax Costs ordered against Defendants. In the taxation all reasonable claims are allowed and for that claims reasonable amounts are taxed. The Plaintiff withdrew his claims against the Defendant, nearly 7 years from the time of institution of HBC 655 of 1998. Up to the time of withdrawal reasonable cost allowed was 75% of the taxed costs up to that time as they included costs for withdrawn action. This cost after discount was $1327.50 up to trial and all the taxation after that was assessed at $4,310.00. The total taxed costs is $5,637.50. The delay in this taxation is regretted. The claim for costs was not chronological as required in Order 62 rule 13(3). In the circumstances, I shall not award costs for this taxation. For avoidance of any doubts this matter should be considered as a decision of the Master of High Court.

FINAL ORDERS
a.	The costs is taxed at $5,637.50

Dated at Suva this 20th day of June, 2014.

Justice Deepthi Amaratunga
High Court, Suva