Hitex Building Systems Limited v Wilkinson Building & Construction Limited

[2013] NZHC 1671

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-001123 [2013] NZHC 1671

IN THE MATTER OF       an appeal under Section 93 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006

BETWEEN  HITEX BUILDING SYSTEMS LIMITED First Appellant

ANDIAN CONRAD HOLYOAKE Second Appellant

ANDWILKINSON BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION LIMITED First Respondent

ANDR A J WILKINSON Second Respondent

ANDAUCKLAND COUNCIL Third Respondent

ANDR J & S K ZAGORSKI Fourth Respondents

ANDT BURCHER Fifth Respondent

AND  R ANGEL

Purported Third Party

Hearings:                 27 and 28 May, 5 June and 3 July 2013 [On the Papers]

Counsel:                  A J Thorn for the Appellants

R J Macdonald and C D Boell for the First and
Second Respondents
P A Robertson for the Third Respondent
S Robertson and E E Cowle for the Fourth Respondents

Judgment:                3 July 2013

HITEX BUILDING SYSTEMS LTD and ANOR v WILKINSON BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION LTD and

ORS [2013] NZHC 1671 [3 July 2013]

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

[Re Costs Application by the Third Respondent]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Duffy on 3 July 2013 at 3.00 pm, pursuant to

r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:

Solicitors:    Adina Thorn Limited, Auckland Short and Partners, Auckland Heaney and Co, Auckland Kensington Swan, Auckland

[1]      On 26 June 2013, I awarded costs to the first, second and fourth respondents (see Hitex Building Systems Ltd v Wilkinson Building & Construction Ltd [2013] NZHC 1566) in this proceeding. I did not award costs to the third respondent. This was because the costs memorandum of the third respondent was not brought to my attention. Consequently, I was unaware that the third respondent sought an award of costs.

[2]      The  third  respondent  seeks  costs  at  category  2B.    The  third  respondent opposed the appellant’s interlocutory application and appeared at the hearing.  The reasons set out in the costs award of 26 June 2013 to the first, second and fourth respondents are equally applicable to the third respondents.  I am satisfied, therefore, that the third respondent is entitled to the costs it seeks against the appellant.

Duffy J