Boswell v Korving

[2022] NZHC 2647

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-921

[2022] NZHC 2647

BETWEEN

KATHRYN FRANCES BOSWELL

Appellant

AND

ANTHONY ROBERT KORVING

First respondent

ANTHONY ROBERT KORVING and
GRAHAM GUNN as Trustees of the

ROBERT KORVING FAMILY TRUST

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

Appellant in person

M A Tapsell for first respondent

Date of judgment:

13 October 2022

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 October2022 at 3.30pm.

Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Law & Associates, Auckland

Copy to:

The appellant

BOSWELL v KORVING – Costs [2022] NZHC 2647 [13 October 2022]

[1]                 My 27 September 2022 judgment dismissing Ms Boswell’s appeal reserved costs for determination, if the parties did not accept my preliminary view (from what I then knew) 1B costs were payable to Mr Korving.1

[2]                 For Mr Korving, Tony Tapsell proposes 2B costs is the better categorisation as adopted in prior case management, reflecting the broader spectrum of signalled dispute then to be addressed. Nonetheless he only would claim 1B costs for preparation for and appearance at the hearing before me. I accept, on the scope of prospective dispute, the proceeding appropriately was classified a category 2 proceeding.

[3]                 Claiming the benefit of legal advice, Ms Boswell opposes both Mr Tapsell’s mix-and-match approach and claim for three days’ preparation, and seeks Mr Tapsell “produce all his costs and a realistic time frame at each step”.

[4]                 If Ms Boswell’s request is for Mr Tapsell’s actual time and expenses, scale rates and times are not informed by actuality,2 unless exceeding it.3 Presumptively, Mr Tapsell’s claim does not exceed Mr Korving’s legal expenses, as Mr Tapsell is obliged otherwise to disclose. Mr Tapsell’s approach also is permissible,4 and in the circumstances generous.

[5]                 I therefore order Ms Boswell pay Mr Korving costs and disbursements in the sum of $9,041.50.

—Jagose J

1      Boswell v Korving [2022] NZHC 2459 at [13]–[15].

2      High Court Rules 2016, r 14.2(1)(e).

3      Rule 14.2(1)(f).

4      Hojsgaard v Chief Executive of Land Information New Zealand [2019] NZCA 84, [2019] 2 NZLR 864 at [127].