Das v Ge

[2014] NZHC 2793

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1976, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B TO 11D OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1980.  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE COURT/LEGISLATION/RESTRICTIONS-ON-PUBLICATIONS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-1055 [2014] NZHC 2793

BETWEEN

D A S

Appellant

AND

G E

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	H Brown for Appellant A C Wright for Respondent
Judgment:	11 November 2014

JUDGMENT OF KATZ J (Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 November 2014 at 4:00 pm

Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:               Rennie Cox Lawyers, Auckland

Alastair Wright, Auckland

D A S v G E [2014] NZHC 2793 [11 November 2014]

Introduction

[1]      On 2 May 2014 the appellant filed a notice of appeal against orders made by

Judge Burns in the Family Court at Auckland on 3 April 2014.

[2]      On 21 May 2014 the parties to the appeal filed a joint memorandum, seeking various orders.   Those orders were made by Ellis J on 23 May 2014, by consent. They included an order that the appellant pay security for costs in the sum of $1,240 no later than ten working days after 27 May 2014.  Those security for costs were not paid.   Accordingly, when the matter was called in the appeals list before me on

29 July 2014, I queried whether the appeal was still on foot or had been deemed abandoned pursuant to s 74(2) of the District Courts Act 1947.  The parties sought time to consider that issue and the matter was adjourned accordingly.

[3]      The appellant subsequently filed a memorandum advising that she did not seek to take her appeal any further.  The respondent filed a memorandum in response, noting that he had been put to the time and trouble of responding to the appeal and accordingly sought the costs of his wasted attendances.  By minute dated 12 August

2014, I expressed the preliminary view that, as the appeal had been abandoned, the respondent was entitled to costs on a category 2B basis.  If costs could not be agreed based on that preliminary indication, leave was reserved to file memoranda.

[4]      Costs were not agreed.  The respondent accordingly filed a memorandum on

2 October 2014, seeking costs on a category 2B basis, in the sum of $3,980.   I

directed that  any memorandum  by the appellant  in  response was  to  be filed by

3 November 2014.  No memorandum has been received.

[5]      I am satisfied that the costs sought by the respondent are appropriate and have been calculated in accordance with the High Court Rules.  I accordingly order that the appellant is to meet the respondent’s costs in relation to the appeal in the sum of

$3,980, together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar (if any).

Katz J