Jabbara v Southern Cross Benefits Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-0011

[2023] NZHC 1044

IN THE MATTER OF s89 of the District Court Act 2016 and an application for transfer of proceeding to the High Court

BETWEEN

STEWAR SINGH JABBARA

Applicant

AND

SOUTHERN CROSS BENEFITS LIMITED

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

Applicant in person

C M Brick and T L Utama for respondent

Date of judgment:

3 May 2023

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 May 2023 at 3.30pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Fee Langstone, Auckland

Copy to:
Applicant

JABBARA v SOUTHERN CROSS BENEFITS LTD - Costs [2023] NZHC 1044 [3 May 2023]

[1] My 27 March 2023 judgment dismissed Mr Jabbara’s application to remove his District Court proceeding to this Court, and took the preliminary view Mr Jabbara should pay 1B costs and disbursements to Southern Cross.1

[2] Southern Cross claims $6,758.50 accordingly. Mr Jabbara argues Southern Cross is disentitled to costs by reason of its contended substantive actions and those impugned in the District Court. Neither is an obvious head for refusal of or reduction in costs.2 The former self-evidently has not been established, and the latter is irrelevant to costs awarded on steps taken in proceedings in this Court.3 Otherwise Mr Jabbara proposes costs be reserved pending appeal. But costs are to follow the event and to be predictable and expeditious.4 Appeal offers no ground for costs’ deferral.

[3]I order Mr Jabbara pay Southern Cross $6,758.50 in costs and disbursements.

—Jagose J

1      Jabbara v Southern Cross Benefits Limited [2023] NZHC 623 at [15]–[16].
2      High Court Rules 2016, r 14.7.
3      Rule 14.7(1)(b); Wen v Qian (Costs) [2022] NZHC 2099 at [3].
4      Rule 14.2(1)(a) and (g).

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand considered an application by Stewar Singh Jabbara to transfer his proceeding from the District Court to the High Court, and the subsequent application for costs by Southern Cross Benefits Limited. Jabbara’s initial application to transfer his case was dismissed, and the court took a preliminary view that Jabbara should pay costs and disbursements to Southern Cross. Southern Cross sought $6,758.50 in costs, while Jabbara argued that Southern Cross was disentitled to these costs due to alleged substantive actions and procedural issues in the District Court. Jabbara also suggested that costs should be reserved pending an appeal.

The court addressed Jabbara’s arguments, noting that his claims regarding Southern Cross’s substantive actions had not been substantiated, and that issues with the District Court proceedings were irrelevant to the costs incurred in the High Court. The court emphasised the importance of predictable and expeditious costs, and found that an appeal did not provide a valid ground for deferring the payment of costs. Consequently, the court ordered Jabbara to pay Southern Cross $6,758.50 in costs and disbursements.

The court's decision was based on the principles of costs following the event, the predictability and expeditiousness of cost awards, and the lack of a valid basis for refusing or reducing the costs claimed by Southern Cross. The court's ruling underscores the importance of adhering to procedural norms and the consequences of unsuccessful applications for cost recovery in litigation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established