Ho v Maiden Homes Limited

[2015] NZHC 91

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CIV2013-463-000452 [2015] NZHC 91

IN THE MATTER OF

the Companies Act 1993

BETWEEN

LAY LAM HO and AVINA THANH PHUONG TRAN

Plaintiffs

AND

MAIDEN HOMES LIMITED Defendant

CIV 2013-463-000453

IN THE MATTER OF

the Insolvency Act 2006

BETWEEN

LAY LAM HO and AVINA THANH PHUONG TRAN

Judgment Creditors

AND

STEPHANIE ANNE CASTLE Judgment Debtor

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	K J Patterson for the Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors T Mounsey for the Defendant/Judgment Debtor
Judgment:	5 February 2015

COSTS JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE CHRISTIANSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on

05.02.15 at 4:30pm, pursuant to

Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

LAY LAM HO and AVINA THANH PHUONG TRAN v MAIDEN HOMES LIMITED [2015] NZHC 91 [5

February 2015]

[1]      These matters were called in the list on 11 November 2014.  There were no appearances for any party and I struck the proceedings out.

[2]      Later,  counsel  for  the  defendant  filed  a  memorandum  in  support  of applications for costs.  In response I delivered a minute indicating that applications for costs would be confined to the proceedings in the High Court, and not in connection with any developments concerning the obtaining of judgment in the District Court.

[3]      I added that in the Court’s view costs ought to be fixed on a 2B scale basis.

[4]    The Court has now received costs memoranda on behalf of the defendant/judgment debtor, and in response on behalf of the plaintiffs/judgment creditors.

[5]      The Court has given consideration to counsels’ submissions.  The Court is of the view that whilst there were significant issues around the process by which judgment was obtained in the District Court, the process before the High Court has been relatively simple and straightforward.

[6]      In response to the bankruptcy and liquidation applications brief notices of opposition/defence were filed.

[7]      For the large part subsequent appearances were confined to reporting on progress with the application before the District Court to set aside the judgment.

[8]      Whilst the Court’s initial view was that costs ought to be calculated in accordance with 2B, the Court now considers there is proper reason for an award using band 1B.

[9]      The Court adopts Mr Patterson’s calculations and makes orders for costs

accordingly.

Associate Judge Christiansen