Henderson v Riach

[2014] NZHC 381

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2013-409-001210 [2014] NZHC 381

BETWEEN  DAVID IAN HENDERSON First Appellant

GP96 Limited
Second Appellant

ANDWENDY SUSAN RIACH First Respondent

ANDLICHFIELD VENTURES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION) Second Respondent

ANDPROPERTY VENTURES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION) Third Respondent

Hearing:                   5 March 2014 (on the papers)

Appearances:           Mr Henderson appears in Person for the Appellants

K P Sullivan for the Second and Third Respondents

Judgment:                6 March 2014

JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J [RE COSTS]

[1]      The  second  and  third  respondents  seek  costs  following  their  successful defence of this appeal.   Costs are sought against Mr Henderson in his personal capacity and also against GP96 Limited.

[2]      Mr Henderson in opposing the  application  accepted that while an award should follow the event, it should be assessed on a 2A basis, not a 2B basis as sought

by the respondents.

HENDERSON v RIACH [2014] NZHC 381 [6 March 2014]

[3]      He also challenged aspects of the respondents’ costs calculation, questioned

an aspect of the disbursement claim and resisted an award against himself in person.

[4]      Given  the  complexity  of  the  matter,  I  am  satisfied  that  2B  costs  are appropriate, save for the preparation of written submissions.  In my view a 2A award is appropriate for this item, producing a reduction of $1990 from the $5970 claimed. It is accepted that the item for “commencement of the appeal” is in error, and that it should be halved. This reduces the total costs awarded to $8955.

[5]      I allow the disbursements as claimed, including the item for car hire and parking.   It is no higher than the sum likely to be incurred for other  forms of transport, for example taxis.

[6]      With reference to the incidence of the order, I accept it is appropriate that Mr Henderson  and  the  Company  are  jointly  and  severely  liable.    Mr  Sullivan asserted in his first memorandum that as a “debt incurred post-bankruptcy” it would “sit outside the administration of [Mr Henderson’s] bankrupt estate.”   This is not further explained.  Nonetheless, I make the order sought but without determination of the bankruptcy issue.

Solicitors: Kevin Sullivan, Barrister, Wellington