Armani v Armani

[2022] NZHC 579

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-001224

[2022] NZHC 579

UNDER

The Trusts Act 2019 and the Companies Act 1993 and in the inherent jurisdiction of the High court and the Property Law Act 2007

IN THE MATTER OF

Sun Commercial Trust and Sun Residential Trust and a constructive trust

BETWEEN

VICTOR ARMANI

First Plaintiff

PRESTIGE AUTO DIRECT LIMITED
Second Plaintiff

AND

NICOLE ARMANI

First Defendant

S and T HOLDING 99 LIMITED as Trustee of S and T HOLDING TRUST

Second Defendant

MING MANAGEMENT LIMITED

Third Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	R Thompson and G Bowker for the Plaintiffs H Thompson for the Defendants
Judgment:	25 March 2022

COSTS JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 25 March 2022 at 4 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

ARMANI v ARMANI [2022] NZHC 579 [25 March 2022]

[1]                 On 24 January 2022, I granted judgment against the first defendant, Ms Armani, on the plaintiff’s fourth cause of action in the statement of claim. I declined to appoint a receiver of the various trusts and properties held in the name of the first defendant or entities associated with her.

[2]                 As the successful party on the application for summary judgment, Mr Armani now seeks a costs order against Ms Armani as the unsuccessful respondent.

[3]                 Scale costs of $7,528.50 are sought on a band B, category 2 basis and disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.

[4]                 In my substantive judgment I directed a timetable for the filing of costs memoranda. That included a direction that opposition to any application for costs was to be filed and served no later than 8 March 2022.

[5]                 Ms Armani has, since the substantive hearing and issue of judgment engaged new solicitors. They have advised the Court as a matter of courtesy that they have no instructions in relation to Mr Armani’s application for costs. This notification to the Court is an appropriate step.

[6]                 Ms Armani has not responded to the Court in respect of the application for costs. I proceed on the basis there is no opposition.

[7]                 I see no reason why the costs sought should not be granted. The claim to costs appears to be broadly proportionate to the summary judgment aspect of the case.

[8]                 Accordingly, I make a costs order in favour of Mr Armani against the first defendant for costs of $7,528.50 with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. Those disbursements will need to be limited to a proportion only of the disbursements actually incurred. This is to reflect the fact that the summary judgment application was one part of a much wider application, in respect of which the plaintiff did not succeed.

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

Walker J