Parmar v Govind

[2017] NZHC 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-171 [2017] NZHC 2008

BETWEEN

HETAL KANTI PARMAR

Plaintiff

AND

JAYENDRA LAL GOVIND Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel::	J D Noble for the Plaintiff A Kashyap for the Defendant
Judgment:	22 August 2017

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J [As to costs]

This judgment was delivered by me

on 22 August 2017 at 2.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Solicitors:           Boyle Mathieson, Waitakere City, Auckland

A Kashyap, Epsom, Auckland

PARMAR v GOVIND [2017] NZHC 2008 [22 August 2017]

[1]      By judgment dated 26 June 20171  I made a declaration that the defendant holds a residential property, of which he is the registered proprietor, as a constructive trustee for the plaintiff and her former husband, the son of the defendant.

[2]      I further awarded judgment in the sum of $433,333.33 (being one-third of

$1,300,000 which was the value of the property as at 22 February 2017) in favour of the plaintiff and her former husband to discharge the constructive trust.

[3]      In respect of costs, the judgment provided as follows:

[90]     Costs should follow the event.  I invite the parties to try and reach agreement and file a joint memorandum by 10 July 2017.  In the event that agreement cannot be reached, the plaintiff should file a memorandum by 17

July 2017 and the defendant by 24 July 2017.   Memoranda  should  not exceed five pages.

[4]      Mr Noble has filed a memorandum on behalf of the plaintiff dated 11 July

2017.   In his memorandum he records that he has sent a joint memorandum to counsel for the defendant but he has not received a response.

[5]      The defendant has not filed a memorandum in response to the plaintiff’s

memorandum of 11 July.

[6]      I therefore proceed on the basis of the plaintiff ’s submissions.

[7]      The proceedings were earlier categorised by Associate Judge Sargisson as category  2  for  costs  purposes.    Mr  Noble  has  suggested  band  A  and  claims

$21,296.50 being 9.55 days at a rate of $2,230 per day.  I have made an adjustment to the amount claimed to reflect the allowance of 0.2 days for an appearance at a mentions hearing (as opposed to 0.25 claimed by the plaintiff).  The amount I award is therefore $21,185.00.

[8]      The  plaintiff  also  claims  disbursements  in  the  sum  of  $5,295.75  which includes the cost of the valuer who provided expert evidence for the hearing.  I fix

the disbursements at $5,295.75 as claimed.

1        Parmar v Govind [2017] NZHC 1432.

[9]      I accordingly award costs and disbursements in the sum of $26,480.75 in

favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.

Gordon J