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 upon by the applicant. Despite this, the respondents seek two days of costs. The applicant submits that claim is disproportionate, and that an allowance of a quarter-day remains reasonable for both preparation and attendance, consistent with sch 3.

[5]The applicant’s calculation of costs was therefore as follows:

Legal principles

[6]                  Costs awards are at the discretion of the Court.1 This discretion is to be guided by the principles and schedules set out in the High Court Rules. The general principle of costs is that the party who fails with respect to a proceeding should pay costs to the successful party.2 Ultimately, though, the overall objective is that any costs award ought to do justice between the parties.3

[7]                  Since 1 September 2024, a self-represented party is now entitled to an award of costs in accordance with the daily recovery rate prescribed in sch 2 pt 2 of the High Court Rules.4 The daily recovery rate for all categories is $500.  Costs are assessed by applying the daily recovery rate to the steps reasonably required in relation to the proceeding, with the time prescribed by the time allocations set out in sch 3 of the High Court Rules.

1      High Court Rules 2016, r 14.1.

2      Rule 14.2(1)(a).

3      Kinney v Pardington [2021] NZCA 174 at [1].

4      See High Court Amendment Rules 2024.

[8]                  A successful party is also generally entitled to reasonable disbursements it has incurred in a proceeding. Self-represented parties may make claims for reasonable disbursements,5 with such claims being assessed on the same basis as for represented litigants.6

[9]                  High Court Rule 14.12(1) defines a disbursement as “an expense paid or incurred for the purposes of the proceeding that would ordinarily be charged for separately from legal professional services in a solicitor’s bill of costs”. The High Court Rules further state that a disbursement must, if claimed and verified, be included in the costs award to the extent that it is:

(a)of a class that is approved by the court for the purposes of the proceeding;7

(b)specific and reasonably necessary to the conduct of the proceeding;8

(c)reasonable in amount;9 and

(d)not disproportionate to the circumstances of the proceeding.10

Discussion

[10]              The respondents were successful. They are therefore entitled to costs on a category 2B basis, calculated at a daily rate of $500 for the appropriate steps as described in sch 3 of the High Court Rules.

[11]              The applicant’s submission that the daily recovery rate should be $333.34 is incorrect. The purpose of High Court Rules 14.2(1)(d) and (e) is to give effect to the long standing principle that, in New Zealand, costs are to represent a reasonable contribution to costs actually and reasonably incurred. It does not mean that the daily

5      McGuire v Secretary for Justice [2018] NZSC 116, [2019] 1 NZLR 335 at [55].

6      Re Collier (A Bankrupt) [1996] 2 NZLR 438 (CA), as cited in Cho v Real Estate Agents Authority

[2024] NZHC 3840.

7      High Court Rules, r 14.12(2)(a).

8      High Court Rules, rr 14.12(2)(b) and (c).

9      High Court Rules, r 14.12(2)(d).

10     High Court Rules, r 14.12(3).

recovery rate is discounted to two-thirds of the prescribed daily recovery rate in the schedule to the High Court Rules.

[12]              This proceeding was brought by way of originating application. Accordingly, the steps contained from item 37 to 47 of sch 3 to the High Court Rules are the applicable steps and time allocations for this proceeding.

[13]Those steps are as follows:

Step	Description	Days (2B basis)	Amount
38	Filing notice of opposition and supporting affidavits (for Originating Application)	2.0	$1,000
39	Case management: appearance at list mention 13 May 2025	0.2	$100
39	Case management: appearance at list mention 27 May 2025	0.2	$100
40	Preparation of written submissions (for Originating applications)	1.5	$750
42	Appearance at hearing on 28 August 2025 (time measured in quarter-days)	0.5	$250
29	Sealing order or judgment	0.2	$100
Total			$2,300

[14]              The time allocations prescribed in sch 3 are those that I apply, with the exception that I allow a half-day for the substantive hearing on the basis that this was the time allocated for the hearing, rather than the quarter-day that would otherwise apply.

[15]              I acknowledged the actual time spent by the respondents will have been longer than the time prescribed for each step. They will also have undertaken work that is not provided for in the schedule. However, that is typically the case for a successful party. The rules are, for the most part, not concerned with the actual cost to the parties or the actual time spent. This is explained in High Court Rule 14.2(1)(e):

What is an appropriate daily recovery rate and what is a reasonable time should not depend on the skill or experience of the solicitor or counsel

involved or on the time actually spent by the solicitor or counsel involved or on the costs actually incurred by the party claiming costs.

[16]              In relation to the steps and times allowed, I make the following points. The two list mentions in this matter were not hearings. No allowance is made for preparation in advance of list mentions in sch 3 to the High Court Rules. The number of affidavits drafted by the respondents is not a relevant consideration. The actual time spent preparing is also not a factor. However, the respondents are entitled to a time allocation for the preparing of the court order for sealing, and so that has been included.

[17]              Finally, regarding disbursements, I find that the respondents are entitled to claim the following:

(a)$251 fee for filing the application to lapse caveat.

(b)$143 fee for filing the notice of opposition.

(c)$90 for document printing and binding (accepted by the applicant).

(d)$75 for the delivery and service of court documents on the applicant.

(e)$178.19 for expenses associated with travel to Court.

Result

[18]              Accordingly, the respondents are awarded costs of $2,300, together with disbursements of $737.19.

Associate Judge Gellert