Hiscock, re HC Rotorua CIV 2008-463-860

[2010] NZHC 1383

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CIV 2008-463-000860

IN THE MATTER OF     JOY HISCOCK late of Rotorua, Retired

Deceased

Hearing:         (on papers)

Appearances: S M Kai Fong for the applicant

D C Hiscock, caveator, on his own behalf

Judgment:      3 August 2010 at 1:30 p.m.

JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J (Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 August 2010 at 1:30 p.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors:

Ms S Kai Fong, McKechnie Quirke & Lewis, Solicitors, Rotorua
Copy to:

Mr D C Hiscock, Ohope

RE HISCOCK (DECEASED) HC ROT CIV 2008-463-000860  3 August 2010

[1]      In my judgment of 11 June 2010 I made an order that the costs of the Estate are to be paid by Mr Hiscock, with payment to be met from his share of the Estate.

[2]      The executrix, on behalf of the Estate, has sought costs on a 2B basis.  This includes a claim for an allowance, effectively on a 2B basis, for an application required to be made to the Family Court for release of documents required for the present proceeding.

[3]      Mr  Hiscock  opposes  costs  on  the  following  grounds,  which  I  set  out verbatim:

I do not accept any liability as to costs of or from the High Court of New Zealand as I have an exemption of costs by the High Court of New Zealand under direction of a Judge of the High Court in discharge of contempt.

[4]      Mr Hiscock is mistaken in his understanding that he has an “exemption of costs”.  On the question of liability, I have already made an order that Mr Hiscock pay costs.  It is not open to me simply to review my order.  Any challenge to that order should have been made by way of an appeal.

[5]      As to the quantum, I consider that costs on a 2B basis of $12,640 as sought are fully justified.  There would, in fact, be reasonable grounds for making an order at least for increased costs.

[6]      There is also an application for payment of travel expenses of $282.95 and a sealing fee of $40.   The travelling expense is justified and reimbursement of the sealing fee is standard.

[7]      Accordingly, I make an order that Mr Hiscock pay costs in a sum of $12,640 and disbursements and expenses in a total sum of $322.95, with those sums to be paid out of Mr Hiscock’s share of the Estate.

[8]      Mr Hiscock sought to file other documents which the Registrar declined to accept because they did not comply with the High Court Rules.  Quite apart from any question of form, I confirm, for Mr Hiscock’s assistance, what is recorded above;

any objection Mr Hiscock may have to my decisions should be pursued by way of appeal to the Court of Appeal, not by filing further documents in this Court.  The only likely document  that  might  now  be  filed  in  the  High  Court  would  be  an application for stay of execution pending an appeal.  I also note that there are time limits for appeals and what I have said is not intended to excuse Mr Hiscock from

complying with the time limits, or any other relevant rules.

Peter Woodhouse J