Harley v Registrar-General of Land HC Wellington CIV 2009-485-2167

[2010] NZHC 1724

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV 2009-485-2167

IN THE MATTER OF     the Land Transfer Act 1952

AND

IN THE MATTER OF     an appeal under section 217 of the Act

BETWEEN  RAYLEE PATRICIA HARLEY Applicant

ANDTHE REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND Respondent

Hearing:         On Papers

Counsel:         C R Carruthers QC for Applicant

J R Burns for Respondent

Judgment:      23 September 2010

JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J

[1]      On 30 March 2010 I gave judgment in favour of the Registrar-General with regard to proceedings under s 217 of the Land Transfer Act 1952.  There is no reason why the Registrar-General should not have had costs.   A memorandum has been filed seeking costs based on a 2B assessment.

[2]      The applicant does not object to an assessment of costs based on this category but says that in a number of respects a claim for particular activities cannot be

justified.  That dispute has been referred to me for resolution.

RAYLEE PATRICIA HARLEY V THE REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND HC WN CIV 2009-485-2167  23

September 2010

[3]      With reference to the respondent’s claim for costs, firstly, High Court Cost Rule item 2 claims two days for response to the proceedings.  The applicant says that no response or defence was ever filed.   All that is allowed, the applicant says, is item 3.5, notice of appearance.

[4]      Item 2 is intended to be for “commencement of defence by the defendant (including receiving instructions, researching the facts and law, and preparing, filing and serving statement of defence or notice of opposition).  In this case no statement of defence was ever filed.  However, most of the work covered by item 2 would have been required by the respondent.  I therefore allow 1.5 days under item 2.

[5]      The applicant seeks costs, pursuant to HCR item 11, the following:

a)        for further submissions filed by memorandum dated 26 March 2010 one day; and

b)        for the preparation of the memorandum supporting costs 0.4 of a day.

[6]      I allow the former but not the latter.  I would not ordinarily allow preparation for a memorandum of costs.   However the memorandum of 26 March 2010 was required by the Court and filed in compliance with the directions of the Court.   It concerned the meaning and effect of partition and includes ten pages of legal argument.  An allowance of one day in my view is appropriate.

[7]      Finally the applicant objects to photocopying costs of submissions.  I see no reason why that should not be allowed.  I approve all of the disbursements claimed.

[8]      As a result, therefore, in summary I have:

a)        reduced item 2 as claimed from two days to 1.5 days; and

b)refused to grant the second claim for item 11 for the preparation of the costs memorandum at 0.4 of a day.

[9]      Otherwise the respondent’s claim for costs under the High Court Rules is

confirmed and may be sealed with the amendments I have identified.

Solicitors:

C R Carruthers QC, PO Box 5241, Wellington, email: [email protected]

Ronald Young J

J R Burns, Crown Law, PO Box 2858, Wellington, email:  james[email protected]