Batusov v Batusov

[2020] NZHC 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2019-404-002769

[2020] NZHC 2006

IN THE MATTER OF

Part 19 High Court Rules 2016

AND

of an application by EVGENY BATUSOV for orders pursuant to S 143 of the Land Transfer Act 2017 in respect of caveat claim 11474659.1

BETWEEN

EVGENY BATUSOV

Applicant

AND

YULIYA BATUSOVA

First Respondent

AND

MARTIN PHILIP DREW

Second Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

R J Thompson for the Applicant

No appearance for the First Respondent S Henderson for the Second Respondent

Judgment:

10 August 2020

JUDGMENT OF VAN BOHEMEN J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 August 2020 at 11.00am Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:

Henderson Reeves Connell Rishworth, Whangarei R J Thompson, Barrister, Auckland

Loughlin McGuire, Auckland

BATUSOV v BATUSOVA [Costs] [2020] NZHC 2006 [10 August 2020]

Introduction

[1]    On 9 June 2020, I delivered judgment in these proceedings in favour of the applicant,1 Evgeny ‘John’ Batusov, and made an order under s 143 of the Land Transfer Act 2017 that a caveat Mr Batusov had registered on the title to a property at 8b Oban Road, Browns Bay, Auckland not lapse.2 I held that Mr Batusov was entitled to costs from the second respondent, Martin Drew, on a 2B basis with usual disbursements.3 I directed that the parties may file memoranda if they could not agree on costs.4 The first respondent, Yulia Batusova, did not oppose Mr Batusov’s application.

[2]    On 7 July 2020, Mr Batusov, through his counsel Mr Thompson, filed a memorandum seeking costs on a 2B basis of $12,906.00 and disbursements of

$790.00.

[3]    On 28 July 2020, Mr Drew, through his counsel Mr Henderson, advised that he would not be filing a response to Mr Batusov’s costs memorandum. Mr Thompson advises he has twice been in contact with Mr Henderson since I issued my judgment with a view to conferring on costs but has received no reply to date.

[4]    I now make my decision on Mr Batusov’s application for costs in the absence of a substantive response from Mr Drew.

Discussion

[5]    While costs remain at the discretion of the Court,5 in line with first principles of costs,6 the respondent is liable to pay a reasonable contribution to the costs incurred by the applicant as the clearly successful party.7

1      Batusov v Batusova & Drew [2020] NZHC 1272.

2      Caveat identifier 11474659.1; property identifier NA91A/194 North Auckland.

3      At [73]-[74].

4      At [73]-[74].

5      High Court Rules 2016, r 14.1.

6      Rule 14.2.

7      Rule 14.2(a).

[6]    As I indicated in my judgment, I am satisfied Mr Batusov as the successful party is entitled to costs. I accept his claim for costs and disbursements as calculated in the index to Mr Thompson’s memorandum of 7 July 2020.

Order

[7]    I order that the second respondent pay the applicant costs of $12, 906.00 and disbursements of $790.00.

G J van Bohemen J