IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CIV-2012-404-0910 [2012] NZHC 1949
BETWEEN ASB BANK LIMITED Plaintiff
ANDROSS ARTHUR ROBERTSON First Defendant
ANDCANDACE ANN ROBERTSON Second Defendant
Hearing: On the Papers
Appearances: N Moffatt for Plaintiff
First and Second Defendants in Person
Judgment: 6 August 2012
COSTS JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J
This judgment was delivered by me on 6 August 2012 at
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
N Moffatt, Bell Gully, Auckland: [email protected]
R Robertson, Auckland: [email protected]
LawesLaw, Orewa: [email protected]
ASB BANK LIMITED V ROBERTSON & ANOR HC AK CIV-2012-404-0910 [6 August 2012]
[1] On 5 July 2012 I entered summary judgment against the defendants.[1] I directed that the defendants should pay the plaintiff’s costs calculated in accordance with the provisions of clause 16.8 of the standard terms and conditions attached to the two loan agreements which gave rise to the debt for which judgment was entered.
[1] ASB Bank Ltd v Robertson & Anor HC Auckland [2012] NZHC 1587, 5 July 2012.
[2] I reserved leave to the parties to apply for further orders in the event of any dispute as to the appropriate amount of costs.
[3] The plaintiff has filed the affidavit of a solicitor who has calculated the costs in terms of the order which I made. The defendants were asked to confirm their agreement with the calculations in a letter dated 12 July 2012, but they have not responded to that invitation.
[4] In the circumstances, I direct that the first and second defendants shall pay the plaintiff costs of $18,781.00 and disbursements of $1,360.31.
........................................
Toogood J
- AGLC
- ASB Bank Limited v Robertson [2012] NZHC 1949
- Case
- [2012] NZHC 1949
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide on the appropriate amount of costs that the defendants should pay to the plaintiff. This involved verifying the calculations made by the plaintiff's solicitor and determining whether the defendants had any objections to these figures. The defendants were given an opportunity to respond to the calculations but failed to do so within the specified timeframe.
The court found that since the defendants did not respond to the invitation to confirm their agreement with the calculated costs, it was appropriate to proceed with the costs as calculated by the plaintiff's solicitor. The court thus directed that the defendants pay the plaintiff a total of $18,781.00 in costs and $1,360.31 in disbursements. The court emphasized that this was a final determination of the costs unless further application was made by the defendants.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.