Parkhurst Corporation Limited v Bisht

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-000948

[2021] NZHC 3150

BETWEEN
PARKHURST CORPORATION LIMITED

Appellant

AND

MADHAN SINGH BISHT

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

A Shinkarenko and T Zaseev for the Appellant S Raju for the Respondent

Judgment:

22 November 2021

COSTS JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 November 2021 at 12 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

PARKHURST v BISHT [2021] NZHC 3150 [22 November 2021]

[1] In my judgment delivered 29 October 2021, I allowed the appeal and made an order for costs and disbursements of the appeal on a 2B basis.

[2] The appellant and respondent are agreed as to the quantification of those costs in accordance with the daily recovery rates and claimable steps under the High Court Rules 2016.

[3]I make an order that the costs payable by the respondent to the appellant are

$15,535 plus disbursements of $1,471.50.

[4]Judgment accordingly.

............................................................

Walker J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Parkhurst Corporation Limited has appealed against an earlier decision of the court, seeking a review of the costs awarded in the underlying litigation. The original case involved a dispute between Parkhurst Corporation Limited and Madan Singh Bisht, with the appeal focusing on the costs associated with the litigation process. The hearing of the appeal was conducted on the papers, without the need for an oral hearing, and was presided over by Justice Walker.

The primary legal issue that the court had to address in this appeal was whether the costs awarded in the original proceedings were appropriate and whether any adjustments were necessary. Both parties agreed on the quantification of the costs based on the daily recovery rates and claimable steps outlined in the High Court Rules 2016. The court was tasked with reviewing these agreed costs and making a final determination on the amount payable by the respondent to the appellant.

Justice Walker, in his judgment, allowed the appeal and confirmed the order for costs and disbursements of the appeal. The court considered the agreed quantification of costs and the applicable daily recovery rates and claimable steps under the High Court Rules 2016. After a detailed review, the court determined that the costs payable by the respondent to the appellant were $15,535, plus disbursements of $1,471.50. Justice Walker made a final order that these costs be paid by the respondent to the appellant.

The final orders of the court included the specific amount of costs and disbursements that the respondent was required to pay to the appellant, as well as the confirmation of the agreed quantification of these costs. The court's decision provided clarity on the financial obligations arising from the litigation, ensuring that the costs awarded were in accordance with the agreed terms and applicable legal rules.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	A Shinkarenko and T Zaseev for the Appellant S Raju for the Respondent
Judgment:	22 November 2021