Gillam v Gillam

[2012] NZHC 542

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2012-409-000060 [2012] NZHC 542

UNDER  the Trustee Act 1956

AND UNDER                 Companies Act 1993

BETWEEN  KAREN GAYLE GILLAM Plaintiff

ANDMARK ANTONY ANDREW GILLAM First Defendant

ANDENERSAVE PRODUCTS LIMITED Second Defendant

Hearing:         On the Papers

Counsel:         B Burke and K Hill-Dunn for Plaintiff

H Evans and D Weatherley for First Defendant

Judgment:      26 March 2012

COSTS JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Fogarty on

26 March 2012 at 4.15 p.m., pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:

Solicitors:

Harmans Lawyers, PO Box 5496, Christchurch

Young Hunter, DX WP 21513, Christchurch

Goodman Tavendale Reid, PO Box 442, Christchurch

Taylor Shaw, PO Box 1123, Christchurch 8140

GILLAM V GILLAM HC CHCH CIV-2012-409-000060 [26 March 2012]

[1]      By judgment of 10 February 2012, this Court held that the plaintiff had been partially successful and was entitled to an order for costs on a 2B basis, but subject to the qualification that success is partial only.

[2]      The parties have not been able to agree on an order of costs.  I have received written submissions.  The parties have agreed that the issue can be decided on the submissions.

[3]      The plaintiff seeks 100 per cent costs on preparation and 50 per cent costs on the hearing. The first defendant opposes any order for costs.

[4]      It is not possible for there to be any order for costs because there has already been an order that the plaintiff will obtain some costs on a 2B basis.   It is only a question as to the extent.

[5]      Counsel for the first defendant also argues that the costs to be awarded should be reserved until the substantive proceedings are disposed of.   That is contrary to current policy.

[6]      Having reviewed the submissions I think there is merit in the first defendant’s argument that the case was largely settled just prior to the hearing.   On this perspective there were no winners at the hearing.  The outcome could be described as a draw.

[7]      But I am satisfied by the plaintiff’s submissions that it was necessary for the plaintiff to apply for an interim mandatory injunction.

[8]      Accordingly, the order for costs is that the plaintiff obtains costs against the first defendant on a 2B basis for all steps taken, excluding the attendance at the hearing.  Costs lie as they fall in respect of this argument on costs.