CR21 INVESTMENTS LIMITED AND THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES S2 LEGAL LIMITED

[2024] NZHC 3050

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2024-404-1755

[2024] NZHC 3050

UNDER

The Companies Act 1993

IN THE MATTER OF

An objection to the removal of S2 Legal Limited from the Companies Register

BETWEEN

CR21 INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Applicant

AND

THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

First Respondent

S2 LEGAL LIMITED

Second Respondent

On the papers

Counsel:

P Shackleton for the applicant

E Fox for the second respondent

Judgment:

18 October 2024

COSTS JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 October 2024 at 12.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

CR21 INVESTMENTS LTD v THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES [2024] NZHC 3050 [18 October 2024]

[1]                  This was an originating application under s 323 of the Companies Act 1993 for an order that the second respondent company not be removed from the companies register. The second respondent consented to the order, but costs remained in issue as between the applicant and the second respondent. Those parties have filed costs memoranda. There is no dispute that the second respondent should pay costs to the applicant. Only quantum is in dispute.

[2]                  The first issue is whether costs category 1 or 2 is appropriate. Category 1 is for proceedings “of a straightforward nature able to be conducted by counsel considered junior in the High Court”. Few proceedings are classified as category 1. Perhaps more should be. In any event, this application was straightforward (as most applications under s 323 are) and is appropriately classified as category 1.

[3]                  The second issue is whether the applicant can claim both for item 37 (filing an originating application and supporting affidavits) and item 27 (filing an interlocutory application). The issue arises because in the originating application the first order sought by the applicant was leave to commence by way of originating application. The applicant says that although there was only one formal application it contained separate applications. I think not. There was only one originating application and no separate interlocutory application.

[4]                  The third issue is whether band A or band B time allocations are appropriate. While the application was straightforward and therefore appropriately classified as category 1, I consider that a “normal” amount of time (thus, band B) is reasonable for each of the steps taken by the applicant. This is so, even allowing for the applicant having prepared a similar affidavit in support in another proceeding.

[5]                  I therefore order that the second respondent pay to the applicant costs of $4,452 (2.8 days at $1,590) and disbursements of $893.04.

Campbell J