Jones v Unknown Defendants

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-203

[2020] NZHC 2332

IN THE MATTER of the receivership of CORE INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED (in
receivership)

BETWEEN

KIERAN MICHAEL JONES and THOMAS

LEE RODEWALD as receivers of Core Infrastructure Limited (in receivership) Plaintiffs

AND

UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS

First defendants

JASON GOERTZEN

Second defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

R B Hucker and N A Muir for the plaintiffs Mr Goertzen as unrepresented

Judgment:

8 September 2020

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 September 2020 at 4.30pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Hucker & Associates, Auckland

JONES v GOERTZEN – Costs [2020] NZHC 2332 [8 September 2020]

[1] My judgment of 21 August 2020,1 giving summary judgment against Mr Goertzen on the receivers’ fifth cause of action in the amount of $500,388.81,2 expressed my preliminary view:3

… as the successful party, the receivers are entitled to 2B costs and disbursements on their steps taken in both applications. That is because, so far as I can tell, no step on these averagely complex applications required other than a normal amount of time.

but – if that was not accepted by the parties, or they could not otherwise agree – reserved the question of costs for a timetabled exchange of memoranda.4

[2] That has been the result, Mr Goertzen responding to the receivers’ costs and disbursements claim in the amount of $29,036.80 solely to say “I disagree with all the charges as well as I have finished the company accounts and they show complete opposite[.] I will be appealing this”. No other response is forthcoming.

[3] I have reviewed the receivers’ costs claim, calculated for 2B steps in the proceeding, and note the receivers’ acknowledgments steps now claimed cannot be claimed again on any costs claim on the balance of their causes of action, and expenses incurred exceed costs claimed.

[4] I therefore order Mr Goertzen to pay costs in the amount of $29,036.80 to the receivers.

—Jagose J

1 Jones v Goertzen [2020] NZHC 2136.
2 At [20].
3 At [22].
4 At [23].

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved the receivers of Core Infrastructure Limited (in receivership) bringing an action against the second defendant, Jason Goertzen, in the High Court of New Zealand. The receivers sought to recover costs from Goertzen for proceedings related to the receivership. Goertzen, acting pro se, opposed the claim for costs. The court had to determine whether the receivers were entitled to costs and, if so, the amount. The central issue was whether the receivers were entitled to costs under the standard basis for awarding costs in civil proceedings in New Zealand.

The court examined the claim for costs and found that the receivers had submitted a detailed calculation of their costs, which included fees for legal work and disbursements. Goertzen did not provide any counterarguments to the receivers' claim except to state his disagreement and mention that he had completed company accounts showing the opposite. The court considered that Goertzen's response did not address the merits of the receivers' costs claim and noted that the receivers had acknowledged that certain steps could not be claimed again on any costs claim on the balance of their causes of action. Given the lack of any substantive opposition from Goertzen, the court found that the receivers were entitled to the costs they had claimed. The court concluded that the receivers were entitled to the full amount of costs claimed, which was $29,036.80.

The court ordered Goertzen to pay the receivers $29,036.80 in costs. This decision was based on the receivers' detailed and substantiated claim for costs, and the absence of any effective opposition from Goertzen. The court's ruling reinforced the principle that a party opposing a costs claim must provide substantive arguments or evidence to contest the claim, which Goertzen had failed to do.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	R B Hucker and N A Muir for the plaintiffs Mr Goertzen as unrepresented
Judgment:	8 September 2020