King v Doktoroglu - [2025] NZHC 2700

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-001040

[2025] NZHC 2700

IN THE MATTER OF an application for order that the caveat 13021051.1 not lapse pursuant to the Land Transfer Act 2017, s143.

BETWEEN

AARON PAUL KING

Applicant

AND

FERDI EROL DOKTOROGLU and SABINE KELLMANN

Respondents

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

S Dhaliwal for the Applicant

F Doktoroglu in person and for the Second Respondent

Judgment:

18 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE GELLERT

(As to Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 September 2025 at 4:00pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

…………………..
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date ………………….

Solicitors:
Zone Law, Auckland

KING v DOKTOROGLU [2025] NZHC 2700 [18 September 2025]

Introduction

[1] In my judgment dated 28 August 2025, I ordered that caveat 13021051.1 lapse. This means that the respondents were successful. Costs were reserved but I indicated that category 2B costs would ordinarily apply.

[2] Each party filed memoranda in relation to costs. The respondents seek category 2B costs at a daily recovery rate of $500, together with a reimbursement of all actual disbursements that were necessarily and properly incurred to defend the proceeding. The amount sought is $5,737.19, in accordance with the following schedule that they prepared:

Schedule of Costs (Scale Calculation)

[3] The respondents emphasised the burden placed on them by being self- represented, and the time taken to prepare for each step of the proceeding.

[4]The applicant submitted that the respondents’ costs award should instead be

$1,200.02 plus disbursements, for the following reasons:

(a)As a starting point, the applicant says that the daily rate should be two- thirds of the daily rate in accordance with r 14.2(1)(d) of the High Court Rules 2016 (High Court Rules). On that basis, the applicant says the daily rate should be $333.34, not $500.

(b)The applicant agrees with the respondents’ time allocation of one day for preparation of submissions.

(c)The first hearing occurred before the High Court in the Judges’ List for timetabling on 13 May 2025. The respondents have claimed two full days of costs for this appearance. However, the hearing lasted less than 15 minutes, and sch 3 of the High Court Rules provides that the reasonable time for a hearing is to be assessed in quarter-day increments based on the actual time occupied. The applicant submitted that a quarter-day is a more reasonable allowance for both the preparation and attendance at this hearing.

(d)The second hearing, also on the Judges’ List for timetabling, took place on 27 May 2025 and likewise lasted less than 15 minutes. The applicant submits that the respondents’ claim for two days of costs is excessive, and that a quarter-day is the appropriate allowance under the High Court Rules for preparation and attendance at the hearing.

(e)The third hearing was a scheduled half-day fixture and proceeded for just over an hour. In this regard, the respondents succeeded primarily because of inadequacies in the documentation relied…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading King v Doktoroglu

Details

AGLC: King v Doktoroglu [2025] NZHC 2700
Case: [2025] NZHC 2700
Decision Date: 18 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of King v Doktoroglu involved an application to prevent a caveat from lapsing under the Land Transfer Act 2017. Aaron Paul King, the applicant, sought to prevent the lapse of a caveat lodged by Ferdi Erol Doktoroglu and Sabine Kellmann, the respondents. The matter was heard on the papers and the court ordered that the caveat lapse, with costs reserved for later determination. Each party subsequently filed memoranda regarding the costs to be awarded to the successful respondents.

The legal issues for the court to decide included the appropriate daily recovery rate for the respondents, the reasonable time allocation for each step of the proceeding, and the permissible disbursements that the respondents could claim. The applicant argued that the daily recovery rate should be two-thirds of the prescribed rate of $500, and that the time allocation for the hearings should be reduced. The respondents claimed the full prescribed daily rate and time allocation, emphasising the burden of being self-represented and the extensive preparation required.

The court found that the prescribed daily recovery rate of $500 applied and that the time allocations set out in the High Court Rules were appropriate for the steps involved in the proceeding. The court noted that the rules are designed to provide a standard measure of costs and are not concerned with the actual costs incurred or time spent by the parties. The court also determined that the respondents were entitled to claim certain disbursements, such as filing fees and travel expenses.

In conclusion, the court awarded the respondents costs of $2,300, calculated at the daily recovery rate of $500, and disbursements of $737.19. The respondents were successful in their application to prevent the lapse of the caveat and were awarded costs on a category 2B basis.

Orders