Morrison v First Mortgage Custodians Ltd - [2025] NZHC 3243

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2025-485-691

[2025] NZHC 3243

BETWEEN
TAYLOR FORD MORRISON

Applicant

AND

FIRST MORTGAGE CUSTODIANS LTD AND FIRST MORTGAGE MANAGERS LTD

Respondents

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

Applicant in Person

T J Conder for Respondents

Judgment:

29 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[Costs]

[1] On 25 September 2025, Taylor Morrison applied without notice for an interim injunction. The order sought was to restrain the respondents (together, First Mortgage) from enforcing vacant possession at a self-contained flat in Wellington. I declined the application.1

[2] As directed by this Court, in the absence of agreement between the parties as to costs, memoranda have been filed and I now determine costs on the papers.

[3] First Mortgage seeks costs on a category 2, band B basis under the High Court Rules 2016. First Mortgage seeks costs of $4,182.50. First Mortgage has calculated these costs by reference to items 24 and 26 in sch 3 to the High Court Rules, being

1 Morrison v First Mortgage Custodians Limited [2025] NZHC 2844.
MORRISON v FIRST MORTGAGE CUSTODIANS LTD AND FIRST MORTGAGE MANAGERS LTD [2025] NZHC 3243 [29 October 2025]

preparation of written submissions in the context of an interlocutory application (1.5 days) and appearance at the hearing of the defended application (being one quarter day).

[4]Mr Morrison opposes the claim for costs on the basis it is excessive.

Background

[5] Mr Morrison’s without notice application for interim injunction was filed on 25 September 2025 and determined by me at a teleconference held on the same day.

[6] As recorded in my substantive judgment, I first convened a teleconference with Mr Morrison only. When he advised that he had been in contact with First Mortgage’s lawyer (Mr Conder) about the application, a further teleconference was arranged a short time later, so that Mr Conder could attend for First Mortgage on a Pickwick basis.

[7] Mr Conder explains that although he received copies of Mr Morrison’s application for an interim injunction and supporting documents, as filed, by email from the Registrar shortly after 4 pm on 25 September 2025, he had received draft versions of the intended documents for filing from Mr Taylor on 24 September 2025. In anticipation of the application being filed and being required to be determined at short notice, Mr Conder had prepared a memorandum in advance. He filed and served that memorandum (with some supporting documents), by email, at 4.15 pm on 25 September 2025.

[8] The Registrar advises me that the second teleconference held on 25 September 2025, at which Mr Conder attended, lasted around eleven minutes.

Discussion

[9] Mr Morrison says that the preparation time claimed by First Mortgage is unreasonable, noting that 1.5 days is excessive given First Mortgage was only notified of the possible application one day before the hearing. Mr Morrison also submits that it is unreasonable to claim a quarter day hearing when the matter was disposed of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Morrison v First Mortgage Custodians Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 3243
Decision Date: 29 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Morrison v First Mortgage Custodians Ltd, the applicant, Taylor Morrison, sought an interim injunction against First Mortgage Custodians Ltd and First Mortgage Managers Ltd to prevent them from enforcing vacant possession of a self-contained flat in Wellington. The application was made without notice and was declined by the Court. The matter came before the High Court of New Zealand at Wellington, presided over by McQueen J, to determine the issue of costs. First Mortgage sought costs under the High Court Rules 2016, claiming $4,182.50 for the preparation of written submissions and appearance at the hearing of the application. Morrison opposed the claim, stating that the costs were excessive given the short notice of the application.

The Court considered the principle that the party who fails with respect to an interlocutory application should pay costs to the party who succeeds. However, the Court found that the time allowed for the preparation of written submissions was excessive, as there was insufficient time for the Court to read the memorandum prior to the teleconference. The Court deemed a 0.5 day preparation time more appropriate under a category 2, band A basis. The claim for costs for appearance at the hearing was found to be appropriate, despite the brief duration of the teleconference, as the hearing was conducted on an urgent basis.

The Court concluded that a costs order against Morrison in favour of First Mortgage was appropriate, calculated as $1,195 for preparation of written submissions and $597.50 for appearance at the hearing, totaling $1,792.50. The Court ordered that Morrison is to pay this amount to First Mortgage.

Orders