Parkinson v Body Corporate 62124

[2025] NZHC 1336

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2023-485-163

[2025] NZHC 1336

UNDER

part 19 of the High Court Rules

IN THE MATTER OF

an application under section 141 of the Unit Titles Act 2010

BETWEEN

DR PHILIP GRANGER PARKINSON

First Applicant

AND

PERRY ALEXANDER WALKER

Second Applicant

AND

BODY CORPORATE 62124

First Respondent

AND

BRENDON JOHN GILHOOLY

Second Respondent

AND

PIETER JAAP BOS

Third Respondent

Hearing:

On the Papers

Counsel

A F D Cameron for Applicants

P S J Withnall for First Respondent

B J Gilhooly Self Represented Second Respondent K Bond for Third Respondent

Judgment:

27 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

[Costs]

PARKINSON v BODY CORPORATE 62124 [2025] NZHC 1336 [27 May 2025]

Introduction

[1]                  This matter concerns a dispute between the members of Body Corporate 62124 (the  Body  Corporate),  which  governs   the   four-unit   residential   complex   at  53 Hankey Street, Wellington.

[2]                  On 7 May 2025, I delivered orders and directions appointing Mr Mulholland as the new administrator of Body Corporate 62124, approving the engagement of  Mr Withnall to assist in the conduct of the proceedings on behalf of the first respondent and directing payment of Mr Withnall’s fees as approved by Mr Greenwood.1 I also directed Mr Greenwood to set out the amount of time and/or cost spent on meritless or unnecessary matters brought about by  the actions of Mr  Brendon  Gilhooly or  Mr Pieter Bos, to enable an order under s 127 of the Unit Titles Act 2010 apportioning the costs of administration to be made.

[3]                  The second and third respondent submit that any submissions and a subsequent determination on costs be deferred pending a determination by this Court on the apportionment of administration costs. They seek timetabling directions to be varied for:

(a)the applicants and first respondent to file and serve their submissions on costs within 14 days from the Court’s determination on apportionment of administration costs; and

(b)the second and third respondents file and serve their submissions on costs within a further 14 days.

[4]The first respondent opposes varying the timetable for costs submissions.

[5]                  The applicant, Mr Parkinson, consents to varying the timetable for costs submissions by five days in relation to [3(a) and (b)], rather than 14 days.

1      Parkinson & Anor v Body Corporate 62124 [2025] NZHC 1085 at [38].

[6]                  I have received Mr Greenwood’s report dated 16 May 2025 which details the time spent on dealing with Mr Gilhooly and Mr Bos on meritless and unnecessary matters brought about by the actions of Mr Gilhooly or Mr Bos. I have read that report and accept that Mr Greenwood has calculated a total $21,600 exclusive of GST on dealing with Mr Gilhooly and Mr Bos.

[7]                  The first respondent notes that it provided the second respondent and the solicitors for the third respondent with a calculation of costs on  a 2B basis on        15 May 2025. I note that the apportionment of administration costs is separate to the issue of costs awarded as to the general proceedings. The second and third respondents, therefore, have had a reasonable amount of time to agree on costs.

[8]                  The dispute has continued for a prolonged period, and I consider it would not be appropriate to delay the ordering for costs any longer than necessary. However, in the interests of justice, I vary the timetabling directions as set out below as suggested by Mr Parkinson.

Result

[9]                  I direct that $21,600 exclusive of GST is payable by Mr Brendon Gilhooly and Mr Pieter Bos under s 127 of the Unit Titles Act 2010.

[10]              The parties have been invited to agree as to costs amongst themselves. If they are unable to do so, I direct that the applicants and first respondent to file and serve their submissions on costs within five days from this judgment, with the second and third respondents to have five days to file and serve their memoranda in reply. Costs will then be dealt with on the papers.

Churchman J

Solicitors:

Brookfields Lawyers, Auckland for Applicants

Greenwood Roche, Wellington for First Respondent

Braun, Bond and Lomas, Hamilton for Third Respondent