Johnstone v Johnstone

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2015-404-493 [2015] NZHC 2439

BETWEEN
CAMPBELL GRAHAM JOHNSTONE

Appellant

AND

JOANNE MARGARET JOHNSTONE Respondent

Inchambers: On papers

Judgment:

6 October 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS (Costs)

[1] My judgment of 28 August 2015 dismissed this appeal.1 Costs were reserved.

[2] The appellant accepts he must pay costs. There is agreement that the costs should be awarded on a category 2 band B basis, and that $150 for disbursements is appropriate.

[3] There is disagreement on three points. Having considered the submissions, and essentially for reasons given by Mr Gilchrist in his reply submissions, I am satisfied the costs sought by the respondent are appropriate. Specifically:

(a) item 53 is applicable, (despite the absence of a cross appeal);

(b)item 54 is applicable (the post hearing attendances being required by the Court and arising from the prosecution of the appeal); and

1 Johnstone v Johnstone [2015] NZHC 2047.

JOHNSTONE v JOHNSTONE [2015] NZHC 2439 [6 October 2015]

(c) the augmented daily rate of $2,250 applies as from 1 July 2015 in accordance with the High Court Amendment Rules 2015
(SR 2015/102).

Result

[4] Accordingly there will be costs in favour of the respondent in the sum of

$11,010 together with disbursements of $150.

Stephen Kós J

Solicitors:
Glaister Ennor, Auckland for Appellant
Richard Wood, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an appeal by Campbell Graham Johnstone against a decision made in a previous hearing. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The respondent, Joanne Margaret Johnstone, sought costs for the prosecution of the appeal. The appellant accepted that he must pay the costs, but there was disagreement on the specific amount and the basis on which the costs should be calculated. The court awarded costs on a category 2 band B basis and determined that the augmented daily rate of $2,250, which came into effect from 1 July 2015, should be applied. The court also agreed with the respondent's claim for specific items of costs, including those related to post-hearing attendances required by the court. The total costs awarded to the respondent were $11,010, together with disbursements of $150.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of the appropriate costs to be awarded to the respondent for the prosecution of the appeal. This involved several sub-issues, including the applicability of certain items of costs, the appropriate daily rate to be applied, and the basis on which the costs should be calculated. The court considered the submissions from both parties and the reasons provided by the respondent's representative, ultimately determining that the costs sought by the respondent were appropriate. The court's decision hinged on the interpretation of the relevant rules and the circumstances of the case.

The court's reasoning was based on the agreement between the parties that costs should be awarded on a category 2 band B basis, and the specific items of costs claimed by the respondent. The court accepted the respondent's argument that certain items of costs, including those related to post-hearing attendances, were applicable despite the absence of a cross-appeal. The court also determined that the augmented daily rate of $2,250, which came into effect from 1 July 2015, should be applied to the calculation of costs. The court found the submissions of the respondent's representative to be persuasive and, accordingly, awarded the respondent costs in the sum of $11,010, together with disbursements of $150.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant must pay the respondent costs in the sum of $11,010, together with disbursements of $150. The costs were to be awarded on a category 2 band B basis, with the augmented daily rate of $2,250 applied as from 1 July 2015. The court's decision was based on the agreement between the parties and the reasoning outlined above. The costs were to be paid by the appellant within 28 days of the judgment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established