Openyd Limited v G J Lawrence Dental Limited

Case

[2018] NZHC 2018

9 August 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2018-485-267

[2018] NZHC 2018

UNDER section 244 of the Property Law Act 2007, Part 19 of the High Court Rules 2016 and common law

IN THE MATTER OF

an application for an order for possession of land

BETWEEN

OPENYD LIMITED

Applicant

AND

G J LAWRENCE DENTAL LIMITED

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

C Griggs for the Applicant

R C Laurenson for the Respondent

Judgment:

9 August 2018


JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

(Costs)


[1]        Memoranda have been filed by the parties on yet another difference between them, this time relating to the costs award made in my judgment of 3 July 2018, in which I ordered the respondent be awarded costs on a 2B basis.1

[2]        First the applicant objects to the items claimed under paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Schedule for the preparation of a case management memorandum, and for the two case management appearances. Given that the memorandum indicated that the application for a stay would be made, and the appearances were involved thereafter to


1      Openyd Ltd v G J Lawrence Dental Ltd [2018] NZHC 1618.

OPENYD LTD v G J LAWRENCE DENTAL LTD [2018] NZHC 2018 [9 August 2018]

case manage the matter in light of this, they seem to me to be properly claimed as costs associated with the successful application. The respondent is accordingly entitled to them.

[3]        The applicant also disputes the disbursement for bundle printing and binding in the amount of $440.25, which counsel for the applicant says should have been broadly equivalent to an earlier claim that it had made in the amount of $137.34. I see no reason to doubt that this disbursement was in fact incurred, or to find the cost was unreasonable, and accordingly it is also allowed.

[4]        I conclude that by observing such minor differences associated with a costs award should have been resolved by discussion between counsel.

Cooke J

Solicitors:

Lawler & Co, Auckland

Gillespie Young Watson, Lower Hutt

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

0