IMS FX Group Pty Limited v Financial Markets Authority

[2016] NZHC 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-001766 [2016] NZHC 2010

UNDER

The Financial Service Providers

(Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act
2008

IN THE MATTER

of the Deregistration of IMS FX Group
Pty Limited

BETWEEN

IMS FX GROUP PTY LIMITED Appellant

AND

THE FINANCIAL MARKETS AUTHORITY

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	M G Locke for the Appellant M Keil for the Respondent
Judgment:	30 August 2016

JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J [Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 August 2016 at 11.30 a.m.

Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

………………………………………………………..

Solicitors:

Turner Hopkins, Takapuna, Auckland

Financial Markets Authority, Auckland

Counsel:

M G Locke, Auckland

IMS FX GROUP PTY LTD v FINANCIAL MARKETS AUTHORITY [2016] NZHC 2010 [30 August 2016]

[1]      The  appellant  was  required  to  pay  security  for  costs  on  this  appeal  by

1 August 2016.  It failed to do so.  Pursuant to s 74(2) of the District Courts Act 1947 the appeal is therefore treated as having been abandoned.

[2]      The respondent has applied for costs.  Although the appeal was abandoned, the respondent was entitled to be heard on the question of costs.   I accordingly directed that the respondent’s memorandum seeking costs should be forwarded to the solicitors and counsel for the appellant as well as to the appellant itself.   A memorandum has been filed by Mr Locke who formerly had been instructed as counsel for the appellant.   Mr Locke advised that he and his instructing solicitors have been  without  instructions  for some  time and  accordingly he was  not  in a position to make any submissions.  He nevertheless, and responsibly, noted that he could find no basis for criticism of the costs claimed.   I thank Mr Locke for the courtesy of his memorandum.

[3]      The costs sought by the respondent are in accordance with the scale that was agreed and recorded in the directions for the appeal.

[4]      There is judgment for the respondent for costs in a sum of $2453.

Woodhouse J