Morris v Morris

[2015] NZHC 2846

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-001365 [2015] NZHC 2846

UNDER

the Partnership Act 1908

IN THE MATTER OF

an application for dissolution of partnership

BETWEEN

VERNON PETER MORRIS Plaintiff

AND

MARGARET CLARE MORRIS First Defendant

NEVILLE SHAW Second Defendant

Hearing:	[On the Papers]
Counsel:	P F Chambers for the Plaintiff S C Dench for the Defendants
Judgment:	16 November 2015

JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS J [re Costs]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Edwards on 16 November 2015 at 4.30 pm, pursuant to

r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Counsel:     P F Chambers, Auckland

S C Dench, Auckland

Solicitors:    Henley-Smith Law, Auckland

R S Walker, Auckland

MORRIS v MORRIS [2015] NZHC 2846 [16 November 2015]

[1]      By judgment dated 23 September 2015, I dismissed the plaintiff’s application to restrain the defendants’ lawyer from  acting in the proceeding.1     I invited an application for costs to be filed within 10 working days of receipt of the judgment if costs were unable to be agreed.

[2]      The parties have been unable to agree costs.  The defendants seek costs on a

2B basis with disbursements amounting to a total of $5,350.50. The plaintiff does not dispute that costs follow the event, nor that the award of costs on a 2B basis is appropriate.   The sole opposition to the claim is that the application was made outside the 10 working days timeframe specified in the judgment.   The plaintiff contends that costs should be left for determination in the substantive proceeding.

[3]      Mr Dench, counsel for the defendants, explains that the delay in filing the application for costs was due to Court commitments following delivery of the judgment.  These included attendances regarding the judicial settlement conference in this proceeding and other High Court trial commitments.

Decision

[4]      Compliance with timetable directions is necessary to ensure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of a proceeding or interlocutory application.  But it does not automatically follow that non-compliance with timetabling orders will always result in a loss of a right conferred.  The Court retains a discretion to grant an extension or reduction of time under r 1.19 to be exercised on such terms as the Court considers just.

[5]      The delay in this case is very short, there is adequate explanation for it, and the plaintiff has not suffered any prejudice as a result.  There is no dispute that the defendant should be awarded costs, and no dispute as to quantum.  There is no basis to depart from the rule that costs should be determined at the conclusion of an

interlocutory application.2

1      Morris v Morris [2015] NZHC 2315.

2      High Court Rules, r 14.8.

[6]      I  therefore  award  costs  to  the  defendants  on  a  schedule  2B  basis  and

disbursements in the total sum of $5,350.50.

Edwards J