Memelink v Mead

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2015-485-854

[2018] NZHC 1698

BETWEEN
HARRY MEMELINK

Applicant

AND

BRUCE ALAN MEAD

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

Q S Haines for Applicant

J C Gwilliam for Respondent

Judgment:

10 July 2018

JUDGMENT OF CLARK J (COSTS)

[1] On 15 August 2016 I dismissed an application by Mr Memelink to stay enforcement of a District Court judgment pending appeal.1 Costs were awarded to the respondent.2

[2] Counsel for Mr Mead now asks that costs and disbursements be fixed. The respondent filed a memorandum on 19 April 2018 setting out the calculation of costs on a 2B basis. The total amount sought, including disbursements, is $5350.50.

[3] Notwithstanding the case manager has followed up with counsel for Mr Memelink, no opposition to Mr Mead’s claim has been filed.

1 Memelink v Mead [2016] NZHC 1886.
2 At [22].

MEMELINK v MEAD [2018] NZHC 1698 [10 July 2018]

[4] The respondent is entitled to the costs claimed and no argument has been put forward in opposition to any aspect of the claim.

[5]Mr Memelink is ordered to pay to Mr Mead costs in the sum of $5,350.50.

Karen Clark J

Solicitors:
Main Street Legal Ltd, Upper Hutt for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Memelink v Mead, the High Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining the appropriate costs to be awarded to the respondent, Bruce Alan Mead, following the dismissal of an application by the applicant, Harry Memelink, to stay enforcement of a District Court judgment pending appeal. Costs were previously awarded to the respondent in the earlier proceedings, and the current application seeks to quantify those costs.

The legal issue before the court was whether the respondent was entitled to the costs claimed, which amounted to $5,350.50, including disbursements. The respondent had filed a memorandum detailing the calculation of costs on a 2B basis, and no opposition was filed by the applicant despite follow-up by the case manager.

The court found that the respondent was indeed entitled to the costs claimed as no argument was put forward in opposition. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent the full amount of the costs claimed, totaling $5,350.50. The judgment was delivered by Justice Clark on 10 July 2018.

This decision underscores the importance of timely opposition to cost claims in such proceedings. The absence of opposition led to the straightforward award of costs in favor of the respondent.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established