Kwak v Park

[2016] NZHC 802

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-001559 [2016] NZHC 802

UNDER

the Weathertight Homes Resolution

Services Act 2006

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal from the Weathertight Homes
Tribunal

BETWEEN

JOONG SONG KWAK AND HYE SOOK KWAK

Appellants

AND

HYUN SU (MARIO) PARK Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	T R Rainey and J P Wood for appellants Appellant in person
Judgment:	27 April 2016

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J [As to costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday, 27 April 2016 at 11:00 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:           Rainey Law, Auckland, for Appellants

Copy to:            Respondent

KWAK & Anor v PARK [2016] NZHC 802 [27 April 2016]

[1]      On 24 March 2016, I gave judgment of this in favour of the appellants, Mr and Mrs Kwak.  I indicated that they were accordingly entitled to costs and gave leave to file memoranda if costs could not be agreed.

[2]      They have not been agreed.

[3]      On 13 April 2016, counsel for the respondent, Mr Park, filed a memorandum in which he advised the Court that Mr Park had terminated his retainer and uplifted all his files.  Counsel and instructing solicitor, accordingly, sought leave to withdraw. Leave is granted on condition that Mr Park’s email address is to be treated as his address for service.

[4]      The following day, Mr Park filed a memorandum with the Court.  It reads:

MEMORANDUM OF COST FOR OTHER COUNSEL May it Please the Court:

1.      The cost should be described hourly base like time log.

2.      The cost should be charged reasonably even they are winning party.

Because in my common sense the two lawyers have got different cost but they charge evenly with daily base.

3.All the relevant documents are erectly same as Tribunal court so They do not need spend a lot of time for the document preparing and case study about the case.

4.      My idea is as blow as their file.

Step          days

52             0.5

53             0.5

10.            0.3

11             0.4

13             0.1

55             0.5

56             1.0

57             0.6

Total         3.9 days

5.     I accept disbursements

6.      Please consider of the reality. Mario Park

[5]      On  18  April  2016,  counsel  for  the  appellants  filed  a  memorandum  in response.   It noted that Mr Park had accepted that disbursements were properly payable by him, but disputed the costs that could be awarded.

[6]      Disbursements which Mr Park has agreed are appropriate to be paid by him are:

(a)	Filing fee for appeal	$540.00
(b)	Service of Notice of Appeal	$172.50
(c)	Hearing fee	$640.00
Total	$1,352.50

[7]      Mr Park submits that High Court scale costs should not be awarded to the appellants.  He submits that an award of less than the scale costs is justified because the same evidence was used in the appeal as in the Tribunal.  However, it is quite normal in an appeal for the parties to rely on  the record of  evidence from the Tribunal.  That is a not a reason to discount costs.  I am also of the view that scale costs are reasonable in this particular case, which was of some complexity.   I am advised that they are substantially less than the appellants have paid.

[8]      Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to scale costs as follows:

Step	Description	Scale Days
52	Commencement of appeal	1
53	Commencement of response to cross-appeal	0.5
10	Preparation for 1st case management conference	0.4
11	Filing memorandum for 1st case management conference	0.4
13	Appearance at 1st case management conference	0.3
55	Preparation of case on appeal	1
56	Preparation of written submissions	3
57	Appearance in Court	0.75
Total	7.35

[9]      Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to costs as follows:

7.35 days @ $2,230.00	$16,390.50
Disbursements	$1,352.50
Total	$17,743.00

……………………………….

Woolford J