Hamilton v Brimstone Ridge Limited

[2016] NZHC 2575

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2016-409-000105 [2016] NZHC 2575

BETWEEN

DOUGLAS IAN HAMILTON and

VICTORIA HAMILTON Appellants

AND

BRIMSTONE RIDGE LIMITED First Respondent

AND

JOAN MCARDLE Second Respondent

AND

JAMES ODHRAN MCCLOSKEY Third Respondent

Hearing:	27 October 2016
Appearances:	E J Tait for the Appellants B R Green & A Sumner for the Respondents
Date ofMinute:	27 October 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1]      This was an appeal against an order for costs made against the appellants in favour of the respondents.   The order for costs  arose out of a dispute between neighbours that had resulted in proceedings before the District Court.   The proceedings were at a certain point when the practical purpose of them changed due to the appellants’ decision to sell their property and move well away from the area.

[2]      There was an outstanding issue of costs which was put before the District

Court Judge and led to the orders that he made.

[3]      It emerged after the appeal was filed that the District Court Judge did not have all the documents that had been filed in the District Court at the time he made

his decision.  Importantly, he did not have the main submissions that had been filed

HAMILTON v BRIMSTONE RIDGE & ORS [2016] NZHC 2575 [27 October 2016]

on  behalf  of the  appellants  with  regard to  costs.   That  led to  issues  that  were discussed before me in this Court and I also heard submissions from counsel as to the background to all that happened.

[4]      Later in the day, I expressed some tentative views as to my consideration of the issues that had been discussed.  As a result, I am pleased to say the parties have reached an agreement that the appeal should be allowed and I do allow the appeal. The order made in the District Court as to costs is quashed.  With the agreement of all parties, no further order is made as to costs.  The parties will bear their own costs in relation to all proceedings in both the District Court and in this Court.

[5]      I also make a further direction that the funds paid by the appellants into the

High Court as security for costs are now to be remitted to the appellants’ solicitors.

Solicitors:

Malley & Co., Christchurch

Cameron & Company, Christchurch.