BLH v MNL

[2015] NZHC 314

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-4772 [2015] NZHC 314

BETWEEN

BLH

Appellant

AND

MNL Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	S R Jefferson QC for Appellant J E McLennan for Respondent
Judgment:	3 March 2015

JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 March 2015 at 4.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ………………………….

Solicitors:           Wynyard Wood, Auckland

Holmden Horrocks, Auckland

BLH v MNL [2015] NZHC 314 [2 March 2015]

appellant’s costs have been paid for some time by her mother.

[2]      Her mother filed an affidavit indicating that she did not have the means to pay anymore costs of her daughter.  Counsel for the respondent argued in reply that the  appellant’s  mother  has  a  wealthy  lifestyle,  probably  based  on  earnings  or drawings from trusts so that while she may be personally of limited means, there is family wealth.  I gave the appellant’s mother an opportunity to file a further affidavit. She wrote a letter which I have not read.

[3]      On 23  September 2014,  I extended  the time  for Ms  H  to  file  a  further affidavit before 2 October, otherwise I would resolve the issue of costs on Friday,

24 October  2014.     No  further  affidavit  has  been  filed  since  that  minute  of

20 October.

[4]      The file has been brought to my attention on Wednesday, 25 February 2015. I apologise to Mr L for the matter being overlooked.

[5]      I am satisfied from the affidavit of Mr L, made on 18 July 2014, that the appellant’s mother and her husband are wealthy individuals, being the legal owners of many properties, including commercial real estate and accommodation businesses and working farms.   I accept that her mother had originally anticipated that she might have to pay the costs on appeal awarded against her daughter.

[6]      With reference to the submission of MR McLennan, dated 18 July, he seeks a total of $10,796 being the amount in the draft order of 6 May of $9,801, together with an additional $995 in relation to attendances to the costs application.  he also seeks an order that the $1,990 security paid in by Ms H be paid out to Mr L.  There has been no challenge to that reasoning.

[7]      In the first instance, there is accordingly an order in favour of the respondent against the appellant in the sum of $10,796.  There will be an order that the sum paid in security for costs shall be paid out to Mr L and credited in reduction of that sum.

Ms H’s mother should that order not be paid.