| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA |
| CA202/2019 [2020] NZCA 51 |
| BETWEEN | MARK ROBERT ENSOM |
| AND | DOWNTOWN HOUSE (No. 2) LIMITED |
| Counsel: | A S Ross QC and P C Murray for Appellant |
Judgment: | 12 March 2020 at 10.30 am |
COSTS JUDGMENT OF MILLER J
AThe Registrar is to pay $478 to the respondent from the appellant’s security for costs.
B The balance of the security is to be paid to the Official Assignee.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS
Mr Ensom is a bankrupt whose appeal to this Court has been abandoned, leaving the Registrar holding $6,600 that he paid as security for costs.
Costs payable according to scale are minimal, since the respondent did no more than file a notice of appearance. It asks however for costs on an indemnity basis (for solicitor-client costs), citing a deed of guarantee. The amount payable on that basis would be $1,583. It goes further and asks that the balance of the security be paid to it in partial satisfaction of a judgment debt.
I accept that the Court has discretionary jurisdiction to award costs on an indemnity basis where a contract so provides,[1] and further to order that costs be deducted from security held.[2]
[1]Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, s 53(3)€.
[2]Krukziener v Commissioner of Inland Revenue HC Auckland, CIV-2010-404-728, 21 June 2011.
It is exceedingly unlikely, however, that the Court would do so in circumstances where the payment would amount to a preference for the judgment creditor. That is plainly the case here, at least in relation to any amount exceeding $1,583.
So far as the actual solicitor-client costs of the appeal are concerned, I do not consider the sum claimed reasonable for a notice of appearance.
The Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 do not fix a sum payable for this step. By analogy with the High Court Rules 2016, 0.2 days is appropriate. Under this Court’s rules for a standard appeal, that comes to $478.
The Registrar is to pay $478 to the respondent. The Registrar is to advise the Official Assignee that she is holding the balance and is to pay it to the Official Assignee on request.
Solicitors:
Atmore & Co, Auckland for Appellant
Russell McVeagh, Auckland for Respondent
- AGLC
- Ensom v Downtown House (no.2) Limited [2020] NZCA 51
- Case
- [2020] NZCA 51
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it had the discretionary jurisdiction to award costs on an indemnity basis as stipulated by the deed of guarantee. The Court also needed to determine the appropriate amount of costs payable for a notice of appearance, given that the respondent had only filed a notice of appearance and not engaged in any significant litigation activities. Additionally, the Court had to decide whether it should order that costs be deducted from the security held by the Registrar, especially considering that such an order would amount to a preference for the judgment creditor.
The Court found that while it had the discretionary jurisdiction to award costs on an indemnity basis where a contract so provided, it was exceedingly unlikely to do so in circumstances where such payment would amount to a preference for the judgment creditor. Regarding the costs for the notice of appearance, the Court ruled that the sum claimed was not reasonable and, by analogy with the High Court Rules 2016, determined that 0.2 days was appropriate, amounting to $478. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to pay $478 to the respondent, while the balance of the security was to be paid to the Official Assignee.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.