Baker v Glenville Properties (Katikati) Limited

[2017] NZHC 316

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2016-470-000163

[2017] NZHC 316

BETWEEN

LLOYD JOHN BAKER AND SHELLY MARIE BAKER
Plaintiffs

AND

GLENVILLE PROPERTIES (KATIKATI) LIMITED

Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	M D Branch for the Plaintiffs J Arnold for the Defendant
Judgment:	2 March 2017

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE CHRISTIANSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on

02.03.17 at 3:30pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

LLOYD JOHN BAKER AND SHELLY MARIE BAKER v GLENVILLE PROPERTIES (KATIKATI) LIMITED [2017] NZHC 316 [2 March 2017]

[1]        The plaintiffs filed an application in the High Court for orders requiring the sale of property and division of proceeds of sale.

[2]        Summary judgment was sought upon that application. Four affidavits were filed on behalf of the plaintiffs. A statement of defence was filed as was a lengthy affidavit in opposition. A reply affidavit was filed in response to the opposition affidavit.

[3]        The matter was set down  for  first  call  in  the  Tauranga  High  Court  on  13 February 2017. When the matter was called counsel confirmed an agreement had been reached on all matters but costs. Counsel were directed to file brief memoranda in support of their party’s position regarding costs.

[4]Counsels’ memoranda have been received and reviewed.

[5]        The evidence indicates the filing of the proceeding on the summary judgment application was necessary. After the proceeding affidavits were filed the parties agreed to a process for sale. In that outcome the plaintiffs’ objective was obtained.

[6]        The proceeding was relatively straightforward i.e. a claim by a 50 per cent owner of the property to realise that property interest against the other 50 per cent owner. Such applications often succeed.

[7]        There is nothing in these circumstances suggesting the Court should do other than award costs to the plaintiffs whose proceeding has concluded with orders of the kind sought by the plaintiffs.

[8]        Costs on a 2B basis together with disbursements are awarded to the plaintiffs in terms calculated by the plaintiffs’ schedule attached to their solicitors’ costs memorandum.

Associate Judge Christiansen