Hart v ANZ National Bank Limited

[2012] NZHC 1705

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-2583 [2012] NZHC 1705

BETWEEN  BARRY JOHN HART First Plaintiff

ANDWOODHILL STUD LIMITED Second Plaintiff

ANDWOODHILL HOLDINGS LIMITED Third Plaintiff

ANDMALORY CORPORATION LIMITED FOURTH PLAINTIFF

ANDANZ NATIONAL BANK LIMITED Defendant

Date:              13 July 2012

COSTS JUDGMENT OF GILBERT J

Solicitors:           N Cooke, Auckland:  [email protected]

Buddle Findlay, Auckland:            [email protected]

HART V ANZ HC AK CIV-2012-404-2583 [13 July 2012]

[1]      The plaintiffs applied for an interim injunction to restrain the defendant, ANZ National Bank Limited (the Bank), from proceeding with a mortgagee sale of various properties.  The matter was listed for hearing on 21 June 2012.  The Bank’s solicitors had prepared for the hearing and filed its submissions.  At the outset of the hearing, the plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr Katz QC, advised that he had no instructions and sought leave to withdraw.  He advised that the plaintiffs had decided not to proceed

with their application for interim injunction and it was accordingly dismissed.[1]

[1] See minute dated 21 June 2012

[2]      Ms O’Gorman,  for  the  Bank,  who  had  not  had  any  prior  notice  of  the plaintiffs’ intention not to proceed with their application, advised that the Bank intended to seek costs.   I directed that any memorandum seeking costs was to be filed by 4.00 pm on 27 June 2012 and any memorandum in reply by 4.00 pm on

4 July 2012.

[3]      A memorandum has been filed on behalf of the Bank seeking costs on a solicitor/client basis in reliance on the relevant provisions of the facility agreements, the guarantees and the mortgages. The amount sought is $34,689.52.

[4]      No memorandum in response has been filed by or on behalf of the defendants and I therefore proceed on the basis that there is no opposition to the Bank’s claim for costs.  The Bank is entitled to costs on a solicitor/client basis.  I am satisfied that the costs claimed have been reasonably incurred by the Bank in resisting the plaintiffs’ application for interim injunction and, accordingly, I enter judgment for

the defendant against the plaintiffs for costs in the sum of $34,689.52.

M A Gilbert J