Marr v Linkloan Trustees Limited

[2015] NZHC 525

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-004313 [2015] NZHC 525

UNDER

the Land Transfer Act 1952

IN THE MATTER

of Caveat No. 9500165.1 (North Auckland
Registry)

BETWEEN

KEITH CHARLES BLUETT MARR and

CHARLOTTE RUBY MARR Applicants

AND

LINKLOAN TRUSTEES LIMITED First Respondent

BARRY IAN PARKIN Second Respondent

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Counsel:	E J Werry for Applicants P Rice for First Respondent K T Glover for Second Respondent
Judgment:	19 March 2015

COSTS JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 March 2015 at 12.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High

Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:           G K Atmore, Auckland Graham Jones Law, Auckland Beca & Co, Auckland

Copy to:            E J Werry, Auckland

P Rice, Auckland

K T Glover, Auckland

MARR v LINKLOAN TRUSTEES LIMITED [2015] NZHC 525 [19 March 2015]

[1]      The minute of 24 February 2015 refers.  In that minute costs were reserved to be dealt with by way of memoranda.  Counsel have now exchanged memoranda.

[2]      In his memorandum of 25 February counsel for the first respondent sought costs on a 2B basis calculated at $4,488 including disbursements of $110.

[3]      Counsel for the applicants does not oppose costs being fixed on that basis and in that sum.

[4]      In  a  second  memorandum  filed  on  behalf  of  counsel  for  the  second respondent, counsel refers to a direction sought at paragraph 2(c) of an earlier memorandum in which the applicants and second respondent agreed any issue as to costs in the caveat proceeding should be dealt with as part of the substantive proceedings.  Orders were made accordingly.

[5]      In the circumstances costs in relation to these caveat proceedings as between the applicants and second respondent are to be dealt with in the context of the costs order in the substantive proceedings.

Result

[6]      The first respondent is to have costs against the applicant in the sum of

$4,488.

[7]      The  second  respondent’s  claim  for  costs  against  the  applicants  in  these

proceedings is to be dealt with at the same time as costs are fixed in the substantive proceedings.

Venning J