Pierce v Spargo

Case [2013] NZHC 3124


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2012-485-001021 [2013] NZHC 3124

UNDER  the Property Law Act 2007

IN THE MATTER             of an Application for Order of Division of Property pursuant to s 339 of the Property Law Act 2007

BETWEEN  STEVEN EVAN PIERCE Plaintiff

ANDJENNIFER ANN SPARGO First Defendant

IAN JAMES EDWARD SPARGO and

HELEN MELVA SPARGO Second Defendants

Judgment:                26 November 2013

JUDGMENT AS TO COSTS OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1]      In my judgment of 14 August 2013 I awarded costs to the defendants on a scale 2B basis.

[2]      Since issuing my judgment:

(1)Counsel for the first defendant has advised that she acted on a pro bono  basis  and  does  not  seek  costs  other  than  an  order  that  the plaintiff pay her disbursements in the sum of $454.80.

(2)       Counsel  for  the  second  defendants  has  asked  that  the  second

defendants’   costs    be    fixed   in    the   sum    of   $12,079.60    plus

disbursements  of  $336.32.     Counsel  for  the  second  defendants

PIERCE v SPARGO [2013] NZHC 3124 [26 November 2013]

explains in his memorandum that this sum is less than the sum that would be payable on a scale 2B basis because of the concessional rate which he charged the second defendants.

[3]      The plaintiff has not responded to the memoranda filed by counsel for the first and second defendants.

First defendant’s disbursements

[4]      The disbursements sought by the first defendant appear to be reasonable for litigation of this kind.   I accordingly order the plaintiff pay the first defendant’s disbursements in the sum of $454.80.  No other orders need be made in favour of the first defendant.

Second defendants’ costs and disbursements

[5]      The memorandum from counsel for the second defendants demonstrates that the costs sought are very reasonable as is the claim for disbursements.   In these circumstances  I  have  no  hesitation  in  ordering  the  plaintiff  pay  the  second

defendants’ costs in the sum of $12,079.60 plus disbursements of $336.32.

D B Collins J

Solicitors:

Ord Legal, Wellington for Plaintiff
Helen Croft, Wellington for First Defendant

Lance Pratley Law, Wellington for Second Defendants

Details
AGLC
Pierce v Spargo [2013] NZHC 3124
Case
[2013] NZHC 3124
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pierce v Spargo involved an application for an order of division of property under the Property Law Act 2007. Steven Evan Pierce, the plaintiff, sought a division of property from Jennifer Ann Spargo, Ian James Edward Spargo, and Helen Melva Spargo, the defendants. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at the Wellington Registry. The primary legal issue the court had to resolve was the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties, specifically regarding the disbursements and legal fees requested by the defendants.

The court examined the submissions from the defendants' legal counsel. The first defendant, Jennifer Ann Spargo, represented by Helen Croft, had acted on a pro bono basis and only sought reimbursement of her disbursements amounting to $454.80. The second defendants, Ian James Edward Spargo and Helen Melva Spargo, represented by Lance Pratley Law, requested costs totalling $12,079.60 plus disbursements of $336.32, which was less than the scale 2B basis due to a concessional rate charged. The plaintiff, Steven Evan Pierce, did not respond to these submissions.

The court found the disbursements claimed by the first defendant to be reasonable and ordered the plaintiff to pay them. Regarding the second defendants' costs and disbursements, the court noted that the requested amount was very reasonable, considering the concessional rate. Therefore, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay the second defendants' costs of $12,079.60 plus disbursements of $336.32. The plaintiff's silence on the matter was noted, but the court proceeded with the orders as the amounts claimed were deemed reasonable.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.