DWK v Lak

[2013] NZHC 1022

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1976, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B AND 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-2012-404-006380 [2013] NZHC 1022

BETWEEN  DWK Appellant

ANDLAK Respondent

Hearing:         On the papers

Judgment:      9 May 2013

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 9 May 2013 at 11:00 am

pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date.........................................

Solicitors:           Corban Revell, P O Box 21180, Waitakere

Fax: [phone]

Counsel:             A Goodwin, P O Box 9123, Newmarket, Auckland 1149

Fax: [phone] – Email: [email protected]

Copy to:             Appellant

DWK V LAK HC AK CIV-2012-404-006380 [9 May 2013]

[1]      In my judgment 15 March 2013 I dismissed Mr K’s appeal from Judge T H Druce’s determination of a s 33 application brought by his former wife, Mrs K.  In doing so, I noted that there were a number of matters that had been determined during  the  course  of  this  litigation  in  respect  of  which  final  costs  orders  were required.   In accordance with my direction the parties have now filed memoranda and I proceed to deal with those costs issues.

[2]      Although Mr K did not challenge the calculations contained in Mr Goodwin’s memorandum, he did express his unhappiness at the fact that Mr Goodwin had previously written to him with a proposal to settle the costs for this matter and the matter which I deal with next for a total of $10,000, which offer was rejected by way of a counter offer.  I do not, of course, know the details of Mr Goodwin’s proposal. For Mr K’s benefit, however, I record the fact that provision is made in the High Court Rules for the setting of costs on a particular basis.  It is always open to parties to  agree  costs  between  themselves,  but  if  agreement  cannot  be  reached  parties entitled to costs may seek an order from the Court in accordance with the High Court Rules.

[3]      The first costs application relates to Mr K’s successful application for leave to adduce further evidence which I determined on 16 April 2010.  Although Mr K was successful in his application I awarded costs to Mrs K on a 2B basis because it was Mr K’s omissions that had made the application necessary.  Mr Goodwin, for Mrs  K,  seeks  costs  on  a  2B  basis  for  filing  the  opposition  to  the  application, preparing   the   submissions   and   appearing   at   the   hearing.      Mr   Goodwin’s unchallenged calculation is $3,117.66 and I make a costs award of that figure.

[4]      The  second  matter  in  respect  of  which  costs  are  sought  is  Mr  K’s unsuccessful appeal heard by Miller J on 10 August 2011.  The costs claim relates to case management hearings, preparation of submissions and an appearance at the hearing.   The costs permitted under the rules are $6,633.33 and I make an order accordingly.

[5]      The  final  matter  is  the  unsuccessful  appeal  that  was  the  subject  of  my decision 15 March 2013.  The claim for costs in respect of this matter relates to the case management hearing, preparation of written submissions and appearance at the appeal hearing.  Costs are claimed in accordance with the rules of $6,301.66 and I make an order accordingly.

[6]      The total of the costs awarded in respect of the three matters described above are $16,052.65.

P Courtney J