Coburn v McDonald

[2023] NZHC 2549

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-752

[2023] NZHC 2549

IN THE MATTER OF

an application under s 21 of the

Administration Act 1969 made under Part 18 of the High Court Rules 2016

BETWEEN

GRANT IAN COBURN and LOUISE JACQUELINE COBURN

Plaintiffs

AND

STEPHEN JOHN MCDONALD

Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	D R Bigio KC and B McLay for the Plaintiffs SWM Piggin and S J McDonald for the Defendant
Judgment:	14 September 2023

COSTS JUDGMENT OF HARVEY J

This judgment is delivered by me on 14 September 2023 at 11 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

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

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:           TGT Legal, Auckland

McDonald Law, Auckland

Counsel:            David R Bigio KC, Auckland

SWM Piggin, Barrister, Auckland

COBURN v MCDONALD [2023] NZHC 2549 [14 September 2023]

Introduction

[1]    The plaintiffs sought the removal of the defendant as executor and trustee. Following the hearing held on 1 December 2022, that application was granted.

[2]Counsel were then directed to file submissions on costs within one month.

Submissions

[3]    As mentioned, the plaintiffs’ application to remove the defendant as executor and to appoint a replacement was granted by a decision dated 24 February 2023. The defendant’s applications for an extension of time and an adjournment were dismissed.

[4]    For the plaintiffs, Mr Bigio KC filed his memorandum on 24 March 2023 seeking costs on a 2B basis in the amount of $25,513.25 with disbursements of $1,710.

[5]    Then on 25 March 2023 counsel for the defendant filed a memorandum confirming that his client did not oppose the costs and disbursements sought.

[6]    Due to staffing shortages, counsels’ submissions were not provided to me until 11 September 2023. The delay is the issuing of this decision is accordingly regretted.

Discussion

[7]    The plaintiffs were successful in this litigation. Costs should follow the event. The defendant does not oppose the costs sought by the plaintiffs. I therefore agree with counsel that costs as sought on a 2B basis are appropriate.

Decision

[8]The plaintiffs are awarded costs of $25,513.25 and disbursements of $1,710.

Harvey J