IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CIV-2011-404-006550 [2012] NZHC 608
BETWEEN RONALD FREDERICK PEARCE Appellant
ANDMAXWELL ARTHUR PEARCE First Respondent
ANDBARRIE ARTHUR YOUNG Second Respondent
Hearing: On the Papers
Counsel: R F Pearce (In Person)
K Young for First and Second Respondents
Judgment: 2 April 2012
COSTS JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J
This judgment was delivered by Justice Fogarty on
2 April 2012 at 2.30 p.m., pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:
Solicitors:
Hesketh Henry, Private Bag 92093, Auckland
Young & Caulfield, DX BP 62020, Browns Bay, Auckland
Copy to:
Ronald Frederick Pearce, 1/23 Galvan Avenue, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010
PEARCE V PEARCE HC AK CIV-2011-404-006550 [2 April 2012]
[1] By a decision dated 10 February 2012, I declined leave by the appellant, Mr R F Pearce to appeal the decision of Judge Hikaka delivered on 19 April 2011. Costs were awarded in favour of the first and second respondents but to be split between them.
[2] Counsel have calculated costs on a 2B basis. I did not indicate that the costs would be on a 2B basis in the judgment, but that is the rate that would have been ordered, that being the basic rate. Costs have been calculated in the sum of $2,444 and the first and second respondents seek costs orders of $1,222 each and have enclosed draft orders for filing. Orders are made accordingly.
Details
AGLC
Pearce v Pearce [2012] NZHC 608
Case
[2012] NZHC 608
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Pearce v Pearce was heard in the High Court of New Zealand Auckland Registry. Ronald Frederick Pearce, the appellant, sought leave to appeal against the decision rendered by Judge Hikaka on 19 April 2011. The first and second respondents, Maxwell Arthur Pearce and Barrie Arthur Young, respectively, were involved in the underlying dispute. The appellant contested the costs awarded to the respondents, which were to be split between them.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant, Ronald Frederick Pearce, was entitled to leave to appeal the earlier decision. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties, considering the calculations provided by counsel on a 2B basis. This basis referred to the basic rate of costs, which the court determined would have been ordered.
Justice Fogarty reviewed the matter on the papers and declined the appellant's request for leave to appeal. The court confirmed that the costs would indeed be allocated on a 2B basis, as calculated by the counsel. The total costs amounted to $2,444, which the respondents proposed to split equally, resulting in each party bearing $1,222. Justice Fogarty approved these calculations and made the corresponding orders.