E M Houghton v AIG Insurance Ltd and Saunders

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 21/2013
[2014] NZSC 20

BETWEEN

E M HOUGHTON
Appellant

AND

AIG INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (formerly Chartis Insurance New Zealand Limited)
First Respondent

T E C SAUNDERS & ORS
Second Respondents

Court:	Elias CJ, McGrath and Glazebrook JJ
Counsel:	A J Forbes QC and P A B Mills for Appellant M G Ring QC and B J Burt for First Respondent A R Galbraith QC and A E Ferguson for Second Respondent
Judgment:	18 March 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The costs order made in the Court of Appeal is set aside.

B Costs and disbursements in the High Court and the Court of Appeal are (absent agreement) to be set by those Courts in light of this Court’s judgment on the appeal.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

On 23 December 2013, this Court allowed the appellants’ appeal in SC 19/2013 and SC 21/2013.[1]
[1]BFSL 2007 Ltd v Steigrad [2013] NZSC 156.
On 11 February 2014 the appellant in SC 21/2013 sought orders fixing costs and disbursements in the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
The first respondent in SC 21/2013 has no objection to the disbursements claimed by the appellant but does object to some of the costs claimed.

Result

The costs order made in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
Costs and disbursements in the High Court and the Court of Appeal are (absent agreement) to be set by those Courts in light of this Court’s judgment on the appeal.

Solicitors:
Wilson McKay, Auckland for Appellant
Chapman Tripp, Auckland for First Respondent
Wilson Harle, Auckland for Second Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of E M Houghton v AIG Insurance Ltd and Saunders, the Supreme Court of New Zealand addressed a dispute concerning costs following an appeal. E M Houghton, the appellant, sought to have costs and disbursements set in the High Court and the Court of Appeal in light of the Court's judgment. The first respondent, AIG Insurance New Zealand Limited, had no objections to the disbursements claimed by the appellant but disputed certain costs. The second respondent, T E C Saunders, was also involved in the proceedings.

The primary legal issue the Court had to resolve was the appropriate setting of costs and disbursements in the High Court and the Court of Appeal after the Supreme Court had allowed the appellant's appeal. This involved assessing the objections raised by the first respondent regarding the costs claimed by the appellant. The Court needed to determine whether the costs claimed were reasonable and necessary in light of the Supreme Court's judgment.

The Supreme Court set aside the costs order made in the Court of Appeal and directed that the costs and disbursements in the High Court and the Court of Appeal be set by those Courts, absent any agreement between the parties, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment on the appeal. The first respondent's objections to certain costs were considered, and the Court concluded that the costs should be reassessed by the lower courts based on the Supreme Court's findings. The disbursements claimed by the appellant were not contested and were therefore allowed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established