Asset Finance Limited v Kuttel

[2012] NZHC 1795

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CIV-2012-470-508 [2012] NZHC 1795

BETWEEN  ASSET FINANCE LIMITED Applicant

ANDGEORGE EDWARD KUTTEL Respondent

Hearing:         20 July 2012

Appearances: Ms Amies for applicant (on agency instructions) Mr Earl for respondent

Judgment:      20 July 2012

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE DOOGUE [on Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on

23.07.12 at 4.30 pm, pursuant to

Rule 11.5  of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Counsel:

Osborne Attewell Clews, DX JA31503, Whakatane - [email protected]

Lyon O'Neale Arnold, DX HP40004, Tauranga - [email protected]

ASSET FINANCE LIMITED V KUTTEL HC TAU CIV-2012-470-508 [20 July 2012]

[1]      The applicant filed and served an application for order pursuant to s 145 of the Land Transfer Act 1952 that caveat not lapse.  The filing date was 9 July 2012 and the proceeding was served on 12 July 2012.  No steps were taken in opposition and in fact the respondent instructed solicitors Lyon O’Neale Arnold to consent to the making of an order that the caveat 8682302.1 not lapse.   Mr Earl for the respondent though  appeared  wishing to  be heard on the question of costs.   He opposed Ms Amies application for costs on a 2B basis.   It was his view, and he submitted accordingly, that the proceeding was a relatively straightforward one and that costs category 1 would be apt.  Ms Amies pointed out that the applicant had to issue proceedings promptly given the tight time limits imposed by s 145.

[2]      In effect Mr Earl’s submission is that preparation, filing and service of this proceeding could be described as “proceedings of a straightforward nature able to be conducted by counsel considered junior in the High Court” – that being the basis upon which costs category 1 is allocated.  I do not accept that.  I consider that caveat work is responsible work and that there are difficult timelines to negotiate and that at the very least that sort of work should not be entrusted to those other than counsel of skill and experience considered average in the High Court which is the criterion for category 2.  Accordingly I make the order sought in paragraph 1 of the originating application dated 3 July 2012 and I order that the respondent is to pay costs on a 2B

basis together with disbursements fixed by the Registrar.

J.P. Doogue

Associate Judge