IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE
CIV-2018-485-962
[2020] NZHC 188
BETWEEN QUENTIN STOBART HAINES
First Applicant
AND
BPE TRUSTEES (NO. 1) LIMITED
Second Applicant
AND
HARRY MEMELINK
First Respondent
AND
LYNX TRUSTEES LIMITED
Second Respondent
Hearing: On the papers Counsel:
F E Geiringer for Applicant First Respondent in Person
M L Clarke-Parker for Second Respondents (excused) P R W Chisnall for Official Assignee (excused)
Judgment:
17 February 2020
JUDGMENT OF GRICE J
(Costs)
[1] I awarded costs in favour of Mr Memelink (a litigant in person) on the discontinuance of the proceedings by the applicants.
[2] Mr Memelink opposed the application for discontinuance and also sought costs in the event that the application for discontinuance was successful. I granted leave to discontinue the proceedings.1
HAINES v MEMELINK [2020] NZHC 188 [17 February 2020]
[3] Mr Memelink’s application for costs was opposed on the basis he was a litigant in person. My judgment went into some detail on that issue. I concluded that Mr Memelink was entitled to claim his actual and reasonable disbursements.2 I requested that Mr Memelink file an itemised schedule and supporting receipts or other “written proof of the incurring of each of the disbursements and of the nature of the services provided (in detail in the case if any claim for legal expenses as outlined above)” for his claims.3
[4] Mr Memelink claimed he had incurred fees with a legal firm in the preparation of his documents for these proceedings. I said:4
[66] … the involvement of the law firm Holland Beckett is obscure. It is not apparent how that firm has been involved in these proceedings. Mr Memelink personally has filed a number of memoranda since the granting of the interim injunction but these were largely by way of updating and were not generally of assistance in progressing the proceeding.
[5] Following my judgment allowing the discontinuance Mr Haines applied for costs on the successful application.
[6] Mr Memelink’s claim set out in his memorandum dated 12 November 2019 totalled $14,631.11.
[7] The criticisms made of Mr Memelink’s claim fall under a number of heads as follows:
(a)Legal advice cost. The invoice of Holland Beckett contained no specific reference to legal assistance in these proceedings except for relating to the incorrect sealing of the interlocutory order. Mr Haines said this was not a step in the substantive proceedings and in any event is now subject to an application for recall. Mr Haines does not allow for any claim for the Holland Beckett lawyers costs.
2 Haines v Memelink [2019] NZHC 2802 [31 October 2019] at [67].
3 Haines v Memelink [2019] NZHC 2802 [31 October 2019] at [67].
4 Haines v Memelink [2019] NZHC 2802 [31 October 2019] at [66].
(b)Reader/writer. Mr Memelink says he has difficulties reading and writing. He has therefore used one of the trustees and his brother-in- law, Mr Bassett-Burr who is…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Haines v Memelink and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2020] NZHC 188
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the reasonableness of the costs claimed by both parties. It granted leave for the proceedings to be discontinued but noted that Mr Memelink had opposed the application and sought costs. The court found that Mr Memelink was entitled to his actual and reasonable disbursements, which included expenses for travel, parking, photocopying, and other office supplies. However, the court did not allow for the payment of a reader/writer or the full amount of legal advice costs claimed by Mr Memelink. The court allowed a modest amount for legal advice, totalling $500, and rejected claims for a reader/writer and certain office consumables.
Regarding Mr Haines' costs claim, the court held that the applicants were not entitled to costs due to the discontinuance of the proceedings. The court found that Mr Memelink's reasonable disbursements, amounting to $1,415.22, should be awarded to him. Consequently, Mr Haines' application for costs was dismissed, and Mr Memelink was awarded the reasonable disbursements, along with costs on a 2B basis for the preparation of the statement of defence.
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.