College Rifles Rugby Union Football & Sports Club v Minister of Lands

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-001206 [2015] NZHC 2505

BETWEEN
THE COLLEGE RIFLES RUGBY

UNION FOOTBALL & SPORTS CLUB Plaintiff

AND

THE MINISTER OF LANDS AND THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

Defendant

Hearing: (On the papers)

Counsel:

Prajna Moodley for the Plaintiff
Kenneth Stephen and Heidi Baillie for the Defendant

Judgment:

13 October 2015

[COSTS] JUDGMENT OF MOORE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 October 2015 at 3:00pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar
Date:

THE COLLEGE RIFLES RUGBY UNION FOOTBALL & SPORTS CLUB v THE MINISTER OF LANDS AND THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION [2015] NZHC 2505 [13 October 2015]

[1] On 24 August 2015, I issued a judgment rejecting an application by College Rifles Rugby Union Football & Sports Club Inc (“College Rifles”) for declarations relating to its agreement with the Crown for the lease of its property.1 In that judgment I expressed a preliminary view that costs should be awarded on a 2B basis.2

[2] I have now received a joint memorandum from counsel. They are agreed that costs should be awarded on a 2B basis and provide a figure of $37,681.67.

[3] I therefore order College Rifles to pay costs to the defendant on a 2B basis in the sum of $37,681.67.

Moore J

Solicitors:
Brookfields Lawyers, Auckland
Crown Law, Wellington

1 The College Rifles Rugby Union Football & Sports Club Inc v Minister of Lands and the
Ministry of Education [2015] NZHC 2001.
2 At [116].

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, was asked to determine the outcome of a legal dispute between the College Rifles Rugby Union Football & Sports Club Inc and the Minister of Lands and the Ministry of Education. The plaintiff, College Rifles, sought declarations concerning their agreement with the Crown for the lease of their property. The court had to decide whether the plaintiff was entitled to the declarations sought in relation to their agreement with the Crown.

The legal issues the court had to resolve involved interpreting the agreement between the plaintiff and the Crown regarding the lease of their property. The court needed to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to the declarations they sought in relation to the agreement. The court also had to consider the appropriate basis for awarding costs in light of the joint memorandum from counsel.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted that it had previously rejected an application by the plaintiff for declarations relating to the agreement. The court expressed a preliminary view that costs should be awarded on a 2B basis. Upon receiving a joint memorandum from counsel, who agreed that costs should be awarded on a 2B basis, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay costs to the defendant in the sum of $37,681.67. This decision was based on the joint agreement of counsel and the court's previous view on the appropriate basis for awarding costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Counsel:	Prajna Moodley for the Plaintiff Kenneth Stephen and Heidi Baillie for the Defendant
Judgment:	13 October 2015