Jones v Jones

Case [2024] NZHC 693


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CIV-2022-042-52

[2024] NZHC 693

UNDER the Administration Act 1969

IN THE MATTER

of the ESTATE OF

BASIL RAYMOND JONES

BETWEEN

LAUREL DAWN JONES

Applicant

AND

CINDY MARIA JONES

First Respondent

AND

JASON RAYMOND JONES

Second Respondent

On the Papers

Counsel:

A M Halloran for Applicant

D R Weatherley for Respondents

Judgment:

26 March 2024


JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[Costs]


[1]                  On 7 June 2023, I granted Ms Laurel Jones’ application for orders removing the respondents and herself as executors of the late Mr Basil Jones’ will, under s 21 of the Administration Act 1969.1 In the judgment I indicated I was minded to grant costs in favour of the applicant on a 2B basis. I directed parties to file memoranda if they were unable to reach agreement on costs.


1            Jones v Jones [2023] NZHC 1408.

JONES v JONES [2024] NZHC 693 [26 March 2024]

[2]                  On 19 September 2023, Counsel for the applicant filed a memorandum, applying for costs on a 2B basis. The total amount sought is $15,257.10, being costs of $13,025.50 with disbursements of $2,231.60.

[3]                  On 28 February 2023, the applicant’s memorandum was referred to me for consideration, there having been no memorandum filed in reply by the respondents. I issued a minute the same day indicating that the respondents should file any submissions on costs within five working days after which I proceed to issue judgment. The respondents did not take the opportunity to file submissions in opposition.

[4]                  Accordingly, I am satisfied there should be an award of costs in the applicant’s favour on a 2B basis given her application was successful. However, I do not grant the applicant the full $2,231.60 in disbursements sought. This sum includes $211.60 for research fees from the Wellington District Law Society Library. The cost of external research services is generally not recoverable as a disbursement.2

[5]I therefore award the applicant costs of $13,025.50 and disbursements of

$2,020.

Isac J

Solicitors:

Pitt & Moore, Nelson for Applicant

Young Hunter, Christchurch for Respondents


2David Bullock and Tim Mullins Costs textbook at 159, citing L v T HC Tauranga CIV-2011-470-00568 at [2(b)].

Details
AGLC
Jones v Jones [2024] NZHC 693
Case
[2024] NZHC 693
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard a case between Laurel Dawn Jones, who applied to remove herself and the other respondents as executors of the estate of the late Basil Raymond Jones, and the respondents Cindy Maria Jones and Jason Raymond Jones. The application was made under section 21 of the Administration Act 1969, and the judge had already granted the application on the basis that the applicant's request was successful. The court was required to determine the costs associated with the proceedings, specifically whether the applicant was entitled to recover the full amount of disbursements claimed, including research fees from the Wellington District Law Society Library. The respondents did not file any submissions in opposition to the applicant's memorandum on costs.

The court noted that the cost of external research services is generally not recoverable as a disbursement, citing a relevant case and a costs textbook. Therefore, the court decided not to grant the full amount of disbursements claimed by the applicant. The court awarded the applicant costs of $13,025.50 and disbursements of $2,020, reducing the amount of disbursements claimed by $211.60.

This decision provides clarity on the recoverable costs in estate proceedings and the limitations on disbursements, particularly regarding research fees. The court's judgment highlights the importance of adhering to established legal principles in determining the costs recoverable in such cases. The final orders reflect the court's reasoning and the principles of fairness in the allocation of costs between the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.