Clode v Oliphant

[2018] NZHC 1752

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-647

[2018] NZHC 1752

BETWEEN

BRENT DOUGLAS CLODE

Applicant

AND

DAVID JAMES OLIPHANT

First Respondent

AUBURN DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
Second Respondent

RAILSIDE INVESTMENT LIMITED

Third Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

Applicant in person

P J Bedogni for Respondent

Judgment:

16 July 2018

JUDGMENT NO 2 OF PALMER J

This judgment is delivered by me on at 4.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

.....................................................

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Martelli McKegg, Auckland

Copy to:
Applicant

CLODE v OLIPHANT NO 2 [2018] NZHC 1752 [17 July 2018]

[1]    In a judgment dated 15 June 2018, I declined Mr Clode’s application for a mandatory interim injunction against Mr Oliphant and two other respondents.1 In submissions, the respondents sought costs but the judgment omitted to deal with that.

[2]    I gave leave to the parties to submit memoranda. Mr Bedogni, for Mr Oliphant, seeks costs on a 2B basis totalling $8,123.65. Mr Clode opposes the award of costs which he requests be reserved until the substantive proceeding is determined, given the judgment determined he has a serious question to be tried.

[3]    The usual rule is costs are awarded to the successful party. Rule 14.8 of the High Court Rules 2016 provide costs on an opposed interlocutory application must be fixed when the application is determined “unless there are special reasons to the contrary”.

[4]    There is no reason why the usual rule should not be followed in this case and there is no special reason why costs should not be fixed now. The observations in the interlocutory judgment about the merits of the substantive case do not suggest otherwise.

[5]I award costs of the interlocutory application to the respondents as sought.

Palmer J

1      Clode v Oliphant [2018] NZHC 1442.