Clegg v Houghton

[2017] NZHC 2594

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1976, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B TO 11D OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1980.  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE

THE-FAMILY-COURT/LEGISLATION/RESTRICTION-ON-PUBLISHING- JUDGMENTS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2016-419-98 [2017] NZHC 2594

IN THE MATTER

of ss 339(1) and (4) and 343 Property Law

Act 2007

BETWEEN

JILLIAN RAE CLEGG AND THOMAS WILLIAM CLEGG

Plaintiffs

AND

SHYNELLE MARIE HOUGHTON Defendant

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Counsel:	C M Earl for Plaintiffs
Judgment:	24 October 2017

COSTS JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

CLEGG v HOUGHTON [2017] NZHC 2594 [24 October 2017]

Solicitors:

Jane Hunter (Thames) for Plaintiffs

[1]      In my judgment delivered in this matter,1 I reserved leave for the parties to file submissions on costs.

[2]      I have received submissions on behalf of the plaintiffs and nothing on behalf of the defendant.

[3]      The plaintiffs seek actual solicitor/client costs so as to be consistent with a previous order to that effect made by Woolford J on 19 July 2016. Alternatively, costs on a 2B basis are requested.

[4]      The case called before me was for an order to assist with the sale of a residential property by granting vacant possession.  It was entirely straightforward and I am not sure that, normally, 2B costs would be appropriate.   However, given the hopeless position of the (self-represented) defendant, there is a case for 2B costs, and I grant it in the sum of $7,996.50 as set out in the plaintiffs’ submissions as to costs.

Brewer J

1      Clegg v Houghton [2017] NZHC 2067.