Burmester v Burmester

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-0542

[2019] NZHC 3253

BETWEEN
PETER BURMESTER

Appellant

AND

BEVERLEY JOY BURMESTER

First respondent

ANNELIESE BURMESTER and SARAH BURMESTER

Second respondents

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

Mr Burmester in person

DAT Chambers QC for the first respondent No appearance for the second respondents

Date of judgment:

10 December 2019

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

[Costs]

The judgment was delivered by me on 10 December 2019 at 5.00pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

……………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
DAT Chambers QC, Auckland

And to:
The appellant

BURMESTER v BURMESTER – Costs [2019] NZHC 3253 [10 December 2019]

[1] My judgment of 30 October 2019 took the preliminary view Mrs Burmester’s success on this appeal entitled her to 2B costs and disbursements.1 If that was not accepted by the parties, and they could not otherwise agree, I reserved costs for determination on Mrs Burmester’s application, any response by Mr Burmester to be filed within five working days after its service.

[2]Mrs Burmester’s application for 2B costs and disbursements calculated at

$10,924.50 was filed on 7 November 2019. Assuming it also to have been served on Mr Burmester on that date, any response he sought to make was due by 14 November 2019. The application has been put before me today; no response from Mr Burmester has been received.

[3] I am satisfied the calculation appropriately reflects my original expectation nothing in the steps taken by Mrs Burmester in this averagely complex proceeding required other than a normal amount of time.

[4]I therefore order Mr Burmester to pay Mrs Burmester $10,924.50.

—Jagose J

1 Burmester v Burmester [2019] NZHC 2766 at [18].

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Burmester v Burmester involved a dispute over costs between Peter Burmester and Beverley Joy Burmester, as well as the second respondents, Anneliese Burmester and Sarah Burmester. The dispute originated from an appeal heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. Peter Burmester, the appellant, contested the decision of the court in the original case and sought to challenge the costs awarded to the respondents.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the costs claimed by Beverley Joy Burmester, the first respondent, were appropriately calculated and justified. Beverley Joy Burmester sought 2B costs, which are costs awarded at a higher rate than the standard rate, and disbursements for the proceedings. The court had to determine if these costs were reasonable and necessary given the complexity of the case and the steps taken by the respondents.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Jagose considered the application filed by Beverley Joy Burmester for the costs, which were calculated at $10,924.50. The court noted that no response was received from Peter Burmester, the appellant, regarding the costs application. Justice Jagose was satisfied that the calculation of costs was appropriate and reflected the normal amount of time required for an averagely complex proceeding. Consequently, the court ordered Peter Burmester to pay the awarded costs to Beverley Joy Burmester.

The final orders of the court mandated that Peter Burmester pay Beverley Joy Burmester the sum of $10,924.50 in costs and disbursements. This decision underscored the court's approach to ensuring that the costs awarded were fair and commensurate with the efforts and resources expended in the litigation process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established