Huata v Mangaroa 26N2 Trust - [2022] NZHC 553

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CIV-2019-441-000018

[2022] NZHC 553

BETWEEN
WI HUATA DONNA HUATA

Plaintiffs

AND

MANGAROA 26N2 TRUST

Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Judgment:

24 March 2022

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Costs)

[1] This was a claim by the Mangaroa 26N2 Trust for recovery of land that had been rented from time to time to Mr and Mrs Huata. The hearing ran for three days in the High Court in Napier. I delivered judgment on 28 February 2022. The plaintiff succeeded in all respects.1 The plaintiffs were granted the remedies they sought, being a declaration that the lease had expired on 30 September 2019 and that the tenant was holding over without consent. In addition, an order for possession of the relevant land was granted.2

[2] In the substantive judgment I noted that, subject to hearing from the parties, there was no reason why costs should not be ordered on a 2B basis in favour of the

1 Mangaroa 26N2 Trust v Huata [2021] NZHC 113 at [190] [substantive judgment].
2 At [192].

HUATA v MANGAROA 26N2 TRUST [2022] NZHC 553 [24 March 2022]

plaintiff. I reserved leave for the filing of submissions if the parties could not agree upon costs.3

[3] The parties have been able to agree on costs generally but a number of matters require determination.

[4] The parties agree that costs, in general terms, should be awarded on a 2B basis. The areas of disagreement are:

(a)A claim for inspection of documents by the plaintiff of 1.5 days.

(b)Preparation of hearing of 3 days for filing application and supporting affidavit (entitlement 2 days but claimed for 3 days).

(c)Costs on the application for costs.

(d)Costs on the preparation of memoranda for case management conferences in relation to the initial originating application for possession for non-payment of rent. The plaintiff did not proceed with that original application as the defendant paid the rent. To save costs and time, the application was converted by agreement to an originating application for the recovery of the land which went to hearing.

[5] The award of costs is at the discretion of the Judge, subject to the application of the general principles set out under rr 14.1 and 14.2 of the High Court Rules 2016.

[6] In general terms, the party who succeeds is entitled to costs and the award should reflect the complexity and significance of the proceeding. Usually the cost should be assessed by applying the appropriate daily recovery rate and the reasonable time for the category of proceeding, as set out in the schedules to the High Court Rules. As far as possible, the determination of costs should be predictable and expeditious.4

[7]Bearing those principles in mind, I turn to the matters in dispute.

3 At [194].
4 High Court Rules 2016, r 14.2(1).

Inspection of documents (1.5 days are claimed)

[8] The plaintiff says that it was required to review a substantial number of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Huata v Mangaroa 26N2 Trust and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NZHC 553
Decision Date: 24 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Mangaroa 26N2 Trust sued Mr and Mrs Huata for the return of leased land. The Trust claimed that the lease had expired and that the Huatas were holding over without permission. The case was heard in the High Court at Napier and the Trust succeeded in its claims. The court issued a declaration that the lease had expired and ordered possession of the land to be given to the Trust. Costs were reserved for later determination. The parties were able to agree on most of the costs but had disagreements over several specific areas. These were: the time allowed for inspection of documents, the time allowed for preparation for the hearing, the time allowed for filing the application and affidavit, and the costs for filing memoranda for case management conferences. The Trust was awarded costs on a 2B basis, with some adjustments. The Judge found that one day was reasonable for the inspection of documents, three days for preparation for the hearing, two days for filing the application and affidavit, and costs for the memoranda for case management conferences were allowed as they were required to progress the application.

The court made an award of costs to the Trust, recognising the efficiency of the parties' approach to the proceedings and the use of the originating application process. The court emphasised that the parties' approach to minimise costs and expedite claims was to be encouraged. The court adjusted the award of costs to reflect the reality of the proceedings, and awarded costs on a 2B basis in favour of the Trust.

Orders