Lister v Matthews

[2016] NZHC 2185

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-488-000057 [2016] NZHC 2185

IN THE MATTER OF

the Estate of EARL ARTHUR

RAYMOND LISTER

UNDER

The Family Protection Act 1955 section 4 and the Trustee Act 1956 Section 83B

BETWEEN

DEBRA ANNE GRETA LISTER Applicant

AND

ROBYN ETHEL FRONTIN MATHEWS, LANCE IAN LISTER, LINDA LOUISE LISTER / EDDIE

First Respondent

THE WILSON HOME TRUST / WAITEMATA DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD

Second Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	D A G Lister for herself J M Stringer for first respondents C P Hallowes for second respondent
Judgment:	15 September 2016

JUDGMENT NO 3 OF PALMER J (COSTS)

This judgment is delivered by me on 15 September 2016 at 10.30 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

..................................................... Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Saunders Robinson Brown, Christchurch (J M Stringer) Schnauer & Co, Auckland (C P Hallowes)

And to:

The Applicant

LISTER v MATHEWS & ORS (NO 3) [2016] NZHC 2185 [15 September 2016]

[1]      On 7 July 2016 I declined Ms Debra Lister’s application to review a Minute of Associate Judge Bell.1    I awarded costs on a 1A basis and granted leave for the parties to file and serve memoranda if agreement could not be reached on quantum.

[2]      The first respondents apply for costs on a 1A basis in the amount of $1,984, to be paid from any interest Ms Lister has in the estate of Mr Earl Arthur Raymond Lister.   The second respondent applies for costs on a 1A basis in the amount of

$1,480.

[3]      Ms Lister’s memorandum of 12 September 2016 regarding costs purported to make a “counterclaim” in respect of rental income she said was misappropriated by the respondents from her father’s estate.  She also seeks what I interpret to be a stay of  enforcement  of  the  7  July 2016  judgment,  or  of  this  costs  judgment,  under r 20.10(2)(b) of the High Court Rules.

[4]      In my judgment of 7 July 2016, I said Ms Lister would need to take up, separately,  any  issue  of  the  second  respondent  receiving  rental  income  for  her father’s property during his lifetime.2   But argument over costs in this case is not the time or place to do that.  I suggest the respondents respond to Ms Lister’s concerns to her directly.

[5] I award costs to the first and second respondents as sought in paragraph [2]. I do not stay enforcement of the 7 July 2016 judgment or of this judgment.

Palmer J

1      Lister v Mathews & Ors [2016] NZHC 1540.

2      At [7](b).