Ng v Pauatahanui GS Limited - [2014] NZHC 3397

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2014-485-1731 [2014] NZHC 3397

UNDER Section 244 of the Property Law Act 2007

IN THE MATTER

of a cancellation of lease for breach of covenant or condition

BETWEEN

ALBERT NG and TINA YUK HUNG NG Applicants

AND

PAUATAHANUI GS LIMITED Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

A N Isac for Applicants
J C Corry for Respondent

Judgment

22 December 2014

JUDGMENT OF MACKENZIE J

I direct that the delivery time of this judgment is
3 pm on the 22nd day of December 2014.

Solicitors: O’Sullivan & Associates, Wellington for Applicants
Kapimana Legal Services Ltd, Porirua for Respondent

NG v PAUATAHANUI GS LIMITED [2014] NZHC 3397 [22 December 2014]

[1] This proceeding was an application by the applicants, the owners of premises in Pauatahanui, seeking orders under ss 244 and 251 of the Property Law Act 2007 (the Act) for possession of the premises occupied by the respondent as lessee, for the purpose of cancelling the lease for alleged breaches, and for compensation for the breaches. The respondent opposed the making of those orders, and applied for relief against cancellation of the breach under ss 252, 253, 255 and 256 of the Act.

[2] The proceedings were set down for hearing in October 2014. Shortly before the hearing, counsel filed a joint memorandum advising that the parties had been able to agree on terms which would avoid the need for that hearing, and proposed consent orders to dispose of the proceedings. In the memorandum counsel said:

7. As the parties have been unable to agree on the overall question of costs on the application they respectfully request that costs be reserved for determination by the Court and (subject to any direction by the court) be conducted on the papers.

[3] On 6 October 2014, I noted that memorandum “Orders by consent accordingly”.

[4] The parties have now filed memoranda. The respondent seeks costs on the basis that the claim has been dismissed. The applicants oppose costs.

[5] Counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent should be treated as a successful party. He relies upon r 15.23 of the High Court Rules, which provides that a plaintiff who discontinues a proceeding will normally be liable for costs.

[6] Rule 15.23 is not applicable. That rule applies to a unilateral discontinuance by the plaintiff. That is not the case here. The applicants’ proceedings were dismissed by a consent order. It is often the case, when litigation is settled, that the formal mechanism used to dispose of the proceedings is a discontinuance, or a consent order dismissing the proceedings. When those mechanisms are used, it is not generally appropriate to treat the party whose proceeding is discontinued or dismissed as an unsuccessful party, for costs purposes. The parties should, if costs are in issue, resolve those as part of the settlement.

[7] I must apply the principles in pt 14 of the High Court Rules for fixing costs. Those apply generally where there has…

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 Ng v Pauatahanui GS Limited 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: [2014] NZHC 3397
Decision Date: 22 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicants, Albert Ng and Tina Yuk Hung Ng, sought to cancel a lease of premises in Pauatahanui occupied by the respondent, Pauatahanui GS Limited, due to alleged breaches of the lease. The applicants also sought compensation for these breaches. The respondent opposed the cancellation of the lease and applied for relief under the Property Law Act 2007. The matter was settled before the scheduled hearing, with the parties agreeing to consent orders dismissing the applicants' claim. Following the dismissal, the respondent sought costs, arguing they should be treated as a successful party under High Court Rule 15.23. However, the judge found that the rule did not apply as the dismissal was by consent and not a unilateral discontinuance by the plaintiff.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the respondent should be treated as a successful party for the purpose of awarding costs, and applying the principles of the High Court Rules for fixing costs where there has been no judicial determination of the proceedings. The court examined the relevant High Court Rules and case law, which indicated that in cases where proceedings have been resolved by settlement, it is generally inappropriate to treat the party whose proceeding is dismissed as an unsuccessful party for costs purposes. The court must apply the principles in Part 14 of the High Court Rules for fixing costs, which apply where there has been a judicial determination of the proceedings on the merits.

The court found that because the proceedings had been resolved by settlement, there had been no determination on the merits. The court considered whether the outcome, if the claim had proceeded, was obvious from a perusal of the papers alone, and without taking a view on potentially contentious factual issues. The court concluded that it was not possible to determine a clear winner or loser, and there was no compelling reason to award costs one way or the other. Therefore, the court decided there should be no order as to costs.

Orders