Bartram v Bartram

[2017] NZHC 61

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1976, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B TO 11D OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1980.  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE

THE-FAMILY-COURT/LEGISLATION/RESTRICTION-ON-PUBLISHING-

JUDGMENTS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-001036 [2017] NZHC 61

BETWEEN

ANDREA CLARE BARTRAM

Appellant

AND

IAN RAYMOND BARTRAM Respondent/Cross-Appellant

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel	J D Noble for Appellant C T Patterson for Respondent/Cross-Appellant
Judgment:	2 February 2017

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

This judgment was delivered by me on 2 February 2017 at 1.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ………………………….

Solicitors:           Boyle Mathieson

KP Legal Ltd

Copy to              C T Patterson

BARTRAM v BARTRAM [2017] NZHC 61 [2 February 2017]

[1]      I have before me an application by the respondent/cross-appellant for costs. It  is  correctly  noted  that  there  is  a  typographical  error  in  my  judgment.    The reference to “the appellant” should have been a reference to “the respondent”.

[2]      I convened a telephone conference in relation to the application for costs because it appeared from the information available to me that there was in fact agreement as to costs.  At the conference, counsel for the parties confirmed that there was  agreement  as  to  costs  but,  nevertheless,  the  respondent/applicant  for  costs wanted a formal order.

[3]      There being no disagreement as to quantum, there shall therefore be an order as to costs in the sum claimed of $10,536.75, being the sum of $14,049.00, less a 25 per cent reduction to take into account the loss on the cross-appeal.