Cooke v Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-0204 [2014] NZHC 2808

BETWEEN
K R COOKE

Plaintiff

AND

REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL First Defendant

AND

P HUMPHRIES Second Defendant

AND

B F ENGLAND Third Defendant

Hearing: on the papers

Judgment:

12 November 2014

JUDGMENT AS TO COSTS OF THOMAS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 November 2014 at 1.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………….

COOKE v REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL & ORS [2014] NZHC 2808 [12 November
2014]

[1] Mr Cooke applied for judicial review against the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Complaints Assessment Committee.

[2] In my decision dated 17 September 2014 I dismissed the application.1

[3] The second and third defendants now seek costs on a category 2 band B basis. Mr Cooke has not filed any submissions, advising the Court that he considers such an exercise would be futile.

[4] I have considered the memorandum of counsel for the second and third defendants. I am satisfied the costs sought have been calculated pursuant to the appropriate High Court Rules, analogous with general civil proceedings. I note that as the second and third defendants had shared representation only one set of costs has been claimed.

[5] I am satisfied that costs on a 2B basis are appropriate and an award is made for the sum of $13,731 as sought.

Thomas J

1 Cooke v Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal [2014] NZHC 2254.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr. Cooke sought judicial review of a decision by the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against a decision of the Complaints Assessment Committee. The High Court of New Zealand Auckland Registry considered the matter, dismissing the application for judicial review on 17 September 2014. The second and third defendants, who had successfully defended the application, sought costs against Mr. Cooke on a category 2 band B basis. Mr. Cooke did not contest the application for costs, indicating he believed it would be futile. The Court considered the memorandum of counsel for the second and third defendants and was satisfied that the costs claimed had been calculated in accordance with the appropriate High Court Rules.

The legal issues before the court were whether the second and third defendants were entitled to costs on a category 2 band B basis and if the costs claimed were appropriate. The court noted that the second and third defendants had shared representation, resulting in only one set of costs being claimed. The Court concluded that the costs sought were appropriate and made an award of $13,731 as requested.

In light of the above, the Court found that costs on a category 2 band B basis were appropriate. The Court awarded costs of $13,731 to the second and third defendants. This decision was based on the fact that the defendants had successfully defended the judicial review application, and the costs claimed were calculated in accordance with the appropriate High Court Rules. The Court's decision confirms that the defendants are entitled to recover their costs from Mr. Cooke, who did not contest the application for costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

BETWEEN	K R COOKE Plaintiff
AND	REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL First Defendant
AND	P HUMPHRIES Second Defendant
AND	B F ENGLAND Third Defendant