Olliver v Mulholland
[2014] NZHC 317
•27 February 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CIV2013-404-004285 [2014] NZHC 317
BETWEEN ANDREW JOHN OLLIVER & TINA ANN MARIA OLLIVER
Appellants
ANDWILLIAM FREDERICK MULHOLLAND Respondent
Hearing: On the papers.
Counsel: P J Kennelly for the Appellants
S H Barter for the Respondent
Judgment: 27 February 2014
JUDGMENT (No. 2) OF GILBERT J
This judgment is delivered by me on 27 February 2014 at 5pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
..................................................... Registrar / Deputy Registrar
OLLIVER & TINA OLLIVER v MULHOLLAND [2014] NZHC 317 [27 February 2014]
[1] In a judgment delivered on 12 December 2013 I dismissed the Ollivers’ appeal from a decision of Judge B A Gibson in the District Court at North Shore entering judgment against Mr Olliver in favour of Mr Mulholland for the amount due under a loan agreement and dismissing the Ollivers’ claim that Mr Mulholland had exercised two share option agreements.1 I allowed Mr Mulholland’s cross-appeal relating to the interest payable under the loan agreement. I directed that memoranda should be filed in accordance with a timetable if the parties were unable to agree on the interest calculation or any issue as to costs.
[2] Mr Barter filed a memorandum on behalf of Mr Mulholland setting out his calculation of the interest payable. He seeks an order pursuant to s 45(5) of the Legal Services Act 2011 specifying the costs that would have been ordered had the Ollivers not been legally aided. He also seeks an order releasing the security for costs paid by Mr Mulholland in relation to his cross-appeal.
[3] In terms of the timetable directed in my judgment, any memorandum in response from the Ollivers should have been filed and served on or before
5 February 2014. Nothing has been filed on their behalf and accordingly I now make orders on the basis of the memorandum filed by Mr Barter.
[4] I make an order directing payment to Mr Mulholland of the amount paid by him as security for costs on his cross-appeal, namely the sum of $995.
[5] I make an order in terms of s 45(5) of the Legal Services Act that I would have ordered costs against the Ollivers on the appeal calculated on a 2B basis had they not been legally aided. These costs are as calculated by Mr Barter in schedule 1 of his memorandum save that item 56 relating to the preparation of written submissions should be allowed once, not twice as he has claimed. This reduces
Mr Barter’s calculation by $5,970 to $14,129.
1 Olliver vMulholland [2013] NZHC 3334.
[6] I enter judgment for Mr Mulholland against Mr Olliver for interest as calculated by Mr Barter in schedule 2 of his memorandum, namely the sum of
$52,332.28.
M A Gilbert J