Marginson v Bhana

[2017] NZHC 823

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-1693 [2017] NZHC 823

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal against a decision of the

Family Court at Auckland

BETWEEN

KEVIN JOHN MARGINSON Appellant

AND

MADHU BHANA Respondent

Hearing:	On the Papers
Counsel:	J G Donovan and M H Donovan for Appellant P J Wright for Respondent
Judgment:	28 April 2017

COSTS JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Fogarty on

28 April 2017 at 2.30 p.m., pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:

Solicitors:

J G Donovan, Auckland

Stainton Chellew, Auckland

MARGINSON v BHANA [2017] NZHC 823 [28 April 2017]

[1]      By judgment delivered on 25 November last1 I dismissed an appeal against a decision of the Family Court ordering interim maintenance to the de facto wife.

[2]      The last paragraph of the judgment, paragraph [24] of the judgment reads:

The respondent is entitled to costs, to be calculated on a 2B basis.   If the parties cannot agree costs, I will receive submissions limited to five pages, exchanged in advance.

[3]      That was a finding, and remains a finding, that the respondent is entitled to costs to be calculated on a 2B basis.  The Court has received submissions where both parties are under the misapprehension that they were entitled to argue whether or not the respondent is entitled to costs and if so, on what basis.

[4]      The respondent has calculated costs on a category 2B basis totalling 6.3 days at $2,230 per day, the sum of $14,049.  Counsel for the unsuccessful appellant has calculated costs on a category 2 basis, but with a mixture of category A and category B arriving at 5.2 days.

[5]      My  judgment  was  for  all  attendances  on  a  category  2B  basis.    I  have compared the identification of steps.  I agree that the respondent should not get costs on sealing an order.  So I recalculate costs at 6.1 x $2,230=$13,603.

[6]      Accordingly, the costs awarded are as calculated by the respondent’s counsel

in the sum of $13,603.

[7]      This judgment has been delayed because of the submissions received from the parties having been mislaid in the Registry. Nonetheless, the award for costs

carries interest under the Judicature Act from the date of this judgment.

1      Marginson v Bhana [2016] NZHC 2835.