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 by

a brief telephone appearance. Mr Morrison says that there is no conduct by him justifying an award of costs against him and they should lie where they fall.

[10]              I am satisfied that the principle that the party who fails with respect to an interlocutory application should pay costs to the party who succeeds is applicable in this matter.2 Mr Taylor has not provided any reason why this should not be so.

[11]              In the circumstances, however, I consider that allowing 1.5 days for the preparation of written submissions under item 24 in sch 3 of the High Court Rules would be excessive. While Mr Conder’s memorandum was helpful, there was insufficient time for me to read it prior to the second teleconference being convened. I accept that Mr Conder prepared it because Mr Morrison gave him notice that such an application might be made. Nonetheless, it was Mr Conder’s oral submissions at the teleconference that were important for my oral determination of Mr Taylor’s injunction application. In addition, the matters at issue were not complex.

[12]              I therefore consider that this step in the proceeding is appropriately categorised on a category 2, band A basis. The allocated days or part days for item 24 on a band A basis is 0.5 of a day. I consider this is a reasonable time for the preparation of the memorandum filed for First Mortgage.3

[13]              As for the claim for costs for appearing at the hearing under item 26 of sch 3, this item contemplates the measurement of hearing days in quarter days. I consider the quarter day claimed is appropriate despite the actual length of the teleconference.  Mr Conder was required to attend the teleconference on an urgent basis.

[14]              Accordingly, I conclude that a costs order against Mr Morrison in favour of First Mortgage is appropriate, calculated as follows:

(a)for preparation of written submissions $1,195; and

(b)for appearance at hearing $597.50.

2      High Court Rules 2016, r 14.2(1)(a).

3      Rule 14.5(2)(a).

Order

[15]Mr Morrison is to pay costs of $1,792.50 to First Mortgage.

McQueen J

Solicitors:
Holland Beckett Law, Tauranga for Respondents