Cambridge Homes Holdings Limited v Kenna

[2019] NZHC 2210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2018-419-154

[2019] NZHC 2210

UNDER

The District Court Act 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

an appeal

BETWEEN

CAMBRIDGE HOMES HOLDINGS LIMITED

First Appellant

AND

PETER SANTNER

Second Appellant

AND

GRANT PHILLIP KENNA AND CATHERINE JANE KENNA

Respondents

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	M Majeed & V A Whitfield for Appellants P J Wright & A J Peat for Respondents
Judgment:	4 September 2019

COSTS JUDGMENT OF PAUL DAVISON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 September 2019 at 4:30 pm Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Harris Tate Lawyers, Tauranga

Sellar Bone & Partners, Newmarket, Auckland

CAMBRIDGE HOMES HOLDINGS LTD v SANTNER [2019] NZHC 2210 [4 September 2019]

[1]                  Cambridge Homes Holdings and Peter Santner, the appellants, unsuccessfully appealed a decision of Judge Spear in the District Court, refusing the appellants’ application for summary judgment.

[2]                  Grant and Catherine Kenna, as the successful respondents, now apply for costs on a 2B basis.

[3]                  The respondents have filed a schedule calculating their costs as $14,101. The appellants are largely in agreement with that schedule, however, they contest two of the steps claimed for by the respondents.

[4]                  The first, preparation of respondents’ bundle, is listed as step 25 in Schedule 3 of the High Court Rules 2016. That step falls under the subheading Interlocutory applications and is titled “preparation by applicant of bundle for hearing”. There is a separate subheading for Appeals. The appellants say that the respondents elected to undertake preparation of the bundle, which was unnecessary and is not recognised by Schedule 3 for an appeal.

[5]                  In my view that is correct. Any time and expense expended on the preparation of the bundle is captured by the time taken for preparation of written submissions, recognised at item 56 of Schedule 3, and for which the respondents have claimed three days.

[6]                  The second, appearance at the hearing, is listed as step 57 in Schedule 3 of the High Court Rules 2016, and for which the respondents have claimed one whole day. The appellants say that the hearing did not commence until 11.45am and accordingly either half a day, or three quarters of a day is sufficient.

[7]                  In my view that is also correct. Step 57 of Schedule 3 states that the amount of time allocated for an appearance is the actual amount of time occupied by the hearing, measured in quarters of a day. The respondents’ counsel did not spend a whole day appearing before this Court, and accordingly are not entitled to claim costs for a whole day’s appearance. Instead, considering the hearing commenced at

11.45am and proceeded for the duration of the day, they should receive only three quarters of a day.

Result

[8]                  Taking all of the above into account, I calculate the respondents’ costs on their successful defence of the appeal at $12,069.

Paul Davison J