D v H

[2025] NZHC 1231

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE PARTIES.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2024-412-031

[2025] NZHC 1231

BETWEEN

D

Applicant

AND

H

Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

Applicant in person

J W Cowan for Respondent

Judgment:

19 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN (COSTS)

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 May at 4.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

D v H [2025] NZHC 1231 [19 May 2025]

[1]    In my judgment of 30 April 2025, I dismissed applications by Ms D for a range of orders, including leave to appeal  from  a decision of Associate Judge Lester of  19 September 2024 and a stay of both Associate Judge Lester’s judgment and a judgment of the District Court.1 I also held that Ms H was entitled to costs and that the parties could file submissions as to quantum within 14 days.2

[2]    I received submissions from counsel for Ms H seeking 2B scale costs, although noting that an award of increased costs is justified.

[3]    Ms D did not file submissions, but upon being advised by the Registrar that the matter of costs had been referred to me for a decision emailed the Registry on 15 May 2025 stating:

There will be no compliance with any order for costs to be paid to the Respondent, everything is to be appealed in light of the Courts total failure to provide Oppertunity to be heard despite having now ample opportunity to stop wasting my time. [sic]

[4]    Ms D’s reference to not having an opportunity to be heard is unexplained and has no substance in circumstances where she filed lengthy submissions, attended the hearing, and was given the opportunity to make submissions on costs.

[5]Ms H’s counsel has provided a schedule of the scale costs claimed which total

$8,365. The schedule is in order.

[6]    Ms H asks the Court to make orders under r 7.48 that Ms D be prohibited from taking further steps in this proceeding until a costs order is complied with and/or that Ms D completes community work. It appears to me, notwithstanding Ms D’s clear intention not to pay costs, the application is premature. Rule 7.48 is engaged following a failure to comply with an interlocutory order. If pursued, a formal application should be made and served upon Ms D.

1      D v H [2025] NZHC 988 at [2].

2 At [55].

Result

[7]Ms H is awarded costs in the amount of $8,365.

O G Paulsen Associate Judge

Solicitors:
Anderson Lloyd