Papuni v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 1905)

[2022] NZHC 1503

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-00681

[2022] NZHC 1503

BETWEEN

JAMES PAPUNI

Applicant and intended appellant

AND

REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY [CAC 1905]

Respondent

On the papers:	At Auckland
Judgment:	28 June 2022

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 28 June 2022 at 3.30 pm pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors/Counsel:

Luke Cunningham Clere, Wellington Copy: J Papuni

PAPUNI v REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY [CAC 1905] [2022] NZHC 1503 [28 June 2022]

[1]                 On 9 June 2022 I dismissed an application by Mr Papuni for leave to appeal out of time a decision of the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal.1 Costs were reserved.2

[2]                 The respondent, the Real Estate Agents Authority, has now sought costs in the sum of $6,916.50 calculated on a 1B basis.

[3]                 The application for costs is opposed by Mr Papuni. Mr Papuni disputes that the respondent has been successful and otherwise challenges whether costs should follow the event.

Discussion

[4]                 It is well established that costs ordinarily follow the event so that the loser will pay the winners costs.3 In this case Mr Papuni’s application for leave to extend time for filing an appeal was dismissed because there was no jurisdiction to entertain that application for the reasons set out in my judgment. It follows that there can be no dispute that the respondent was the successful party in this litigation.

[5]                 Moreover, the respondent gave early notice  of  the  jurisdictional  issue to Mr Papuni and Mr Papuni elected nonetheless to proceed with a hearing to determine jurisdiction, only to concede at the eve of the hearing that there was no jurisdiction for the application. At that point he attempted to amend his appeal to challenge a different decision of the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal, a course of action that was not tenable.

[6]                 Taking these matters together it is clear that costs are properly  payable  by Mr Papuni to the respondent.

[7]                 Although costs are therefore properly payable and notwithstanding Mr Papuni has not taken issue with the calculation provided by the respondent, I consider that the amounts claimed are in fact excessive in the circumstances. In particular, while I

1      Papuni v Real Estate Agent’s Authority [CAC 1905] [2022] NZHC 1336.

2 At [11].

3      High Court Rules 2016, r 14.2.

accept that the calculation is appropriately done on a 1B basis and steps 10, 11, and 12 are appropriately calculated for preparation for the first case management conference, filing a memorandum for that conference, and appearing at the first conference respectively (a total of 1.1 days), steps 56 and 57, being preparation of written submissions and appearance at the hearing (a total of 3.25 days), are excessive in the circumstances. This is because the hearing was not a substantive hearing of an appeal but instead a short fixture to determine the jurisdictional issue. The submissions filed on behalf of the respondent effectively replicated the jurisdictional arguments contained in the initial memorandum (for which costs have already been awarded), and otherwise dealt with the attempt by Mr Papuni to amend the appeal. In the circumstances I consider a total of one further day for preparation of the additional submissions and attendance at the hearing is more than sufficient.

[8]                 I therefore conclude a total of 2.1 days on a 1B basis is appropriate, being costs in a total sum of $3,339.

Decision

[9]                 Mr Papuni is to pay costs in the sum of $3,339 to the respondent, the Real Estate Agents Authority.

Powell J