Johnson v Johnson

[2021] NZHC 2649

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1976, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B,

11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE

https://

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2018-485-144

[2021] NZHC 2649

BETWEEN

BRYAN EWART JOHNSON, DAVID HOUGHTON WALE and CHRISTOPHER DAN WILLIAMS
Plaintiffs

AND

CRAIG BRYAN JOHNSON and MARIA BERNADETTE JOHNSON

First Defendants  continued…

Hearing:

(On the papers)

Counsel:

R J B Fowler QC for Trustees of Abel Trust (appearance excused)

C M Stevens, T Mijatov and H L Stanford for Craig Johnson in all proceedings

M B Wigley for Maria Johnson in all proceedings
O E Jaques for Johnson Preschool Limited as amicus

M L Greenhough for Craig Johnson in the relationship property proceeding

Judgment:

5 October 2021

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

(Costs)

JOHNSON v JOHNSON [2021] NZHC 2649 [5 October 2021]

AND  LITTLE SCHOOL LIMITED

Second Defendant

AND  JOHNSON PRESCHOOL LIMITED

Third Defendant

CIV-2020-485-417

BETWEEN                MARIA BERNADETTE JOHNSON

Plaintiff

AND  CRAIG BRYAN JOHNSON

First Defendant

ANDCRAIG BRYAN JOHNSON, MARIA BERNADETTE JOHNSON and GRANT MAITLAND RICHARDSON,

Trustees of the C B and M B Johnson Family Trust

Second Defendants

CIV-2020-485-421

BETWEEN                CRAIG BRYAN JOHNSON

Plaintiff

ANDLIFE LEARNING AOTEAROA LIMITED

First Defendant

AND  MARIA BERNADETTE JOHNSON

Second Defendant

AND  LITTLE SCHOOL LIMITED

Third Defendant

AND  JOHNSON PRESCHOOL LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

CIV-2021-485-118

BETWEEN                MARIA BERNADETTE JOHNSON

Applicant

AND  CRAIG BRYAN JOHNSON

Respondent

[1]                  On 20 June 2021, Mr Wigley, counsel then acting for Maria Johnson (Maria), requested that  I  fix  costs  following  Maria’s  successful  application  to  have  Craig Johnson (Craig) answer interrogatories. Those orders were part of a judgment released on 20 April 2021, which dealt with a number of applications.1 Costs in respect of the other applications were dealt with, but not in relation to Maria’s application for interrogatories.

[2]                  Mr Wigley submits that in the 20 April 2021 judgment I overlooked dealing with costs in relation to Maria’s application for interrogatories, whereas counsel for Craig, Mr Stevens, submits that at least by implication it was intended there be no order for costs on that application.

[3]                  Having revisited the judgment and counsels’ submissions, I am satisfied that  I did overlook dealing with costs on Maria’s application for interrogatories.

[4]                  Maria was substantially successful in her application and obtained orders that most (albeit not all) of the interrogatories be answered.

[5]                  In his memorandum of 20 June 2021, Mr Wigley quantified the costs quantum on a 2B basis. Mr Stevens did not take issue with the calculation but submitted that no costs award is appropriate on the basis there was a measure of success on both sides.

[6]                  While Maria did not obtain an order requiring all of the interrogatories she sought be answered, standing back and making a realistic assessment, Maria was the successful party.2

[7]                  The starting point of course is that costs follow the event.3 “On this point, success on more limited terms is still success”.4

1      Johnson v Johnson [2021] NZHC 840.

2      Waihi Mines Ltd v AUAG Resources Ltd (1999) 13 PRNZ 372 (CA) at [5].

3      High Court Rules 2016, r 14.2(1)(a).

4      Weaver v Auckland Council [2017] NZCA 330, (2017) 24 PRNZ 379 at [26].

[8]                  Accordingly, having concluded that costs should follow the event and with the costs schedule set out at para [5] of Mr Wigley’s memorandum of 20 June 2021 not being disputed, there is an award of costs in Maria’s favour in the sum of $9,440.50 together with the filing fee of $500, giving a total of $9,940.50.

[9]                  I thank counsel for their patience, given the time it has taken to deal with this costs issue.

Suppression

[10]              Pursuant to s 35A of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976, any report of this proceeding must comply with ss 11B, 11C and 11D of the Family Court Act 1980.

Associate Judge Lester