Pillay v Family Court

[2024] NZHC 880

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-245

[2024] NZHC 880

UNDER

Care of Children Act 2004 and Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

A judicial review of the decision of the Family Court Judge at Auckland on

25 January 2022

BETWEEN

MARK PILLAY

Plaintiff

AND

FAMILY COURT

First Defendant

RAVASHINEE MANDY PERUMAL

Second Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers at Auckland
Judgment:	19 April 2024

JUDGMENT (NO.3) OF POWELL J

[Costs on application to stay enforcement of costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 April 2024 at 3.30 pm pursuant to

r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………..

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

MARK PILLAY v FAMILY COURT [2024] NZHC 880 [19 April 2024]

[1]                 On 20 December 2023, I dismissed Mr Pillay’s application to stay enforcement of an earlier costs judgment.1

[2]                 In doing so, I awarded costs on a 2B basis  against  Mr Pillay in  favour of  Mr Kannemeyer and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Enterprise (“MBIE”). I directed both Mr Kannemeyer and MBIE to file calculations of the costs sought on a 2B basis and gave Mr Pillay leave to file submissions in opposition to the quantum of those costs.

[3]                 Both  Mr  Kannemeyer  and  MBIE  have  filed  calculations  as   directed. Mr Kannemeyer seeks a total of $5,736 for filing opposition to interlocutory application, preparation of written submissions and obtaining judgment without appearance. MBIE has sought $5,019 for the filing opposition to the interlocutory application and the preparation of written submissions. No submissions have been provided by Mr Pillay in opposition.

[4]                 Having  considered  the  amounts   claimed,   I   am   satisfied   that   both   Mr Kannemeyer and MBIE are entitled to costs for filing opposition to the interlocutory application and the preparation of written submissions. I do not allow Mr Kannemeyer the costs sought under “obtaining judgment without appearance” as it would be an inappropriate windfall in the circumstances, given the steps taken by Mr Kannemeyer in response to Mr Pillay have already been acknowledged under the other two headings.

[5]                 As a result, on the application to stay the costs judgment, I award both       Mr Kannemeyer and MBIE costs in the sum of $5,019 against Mr Pillay.

Powell J

1      Pillay v Family Court (No 2) [2023] NZHC 3750; and Pillay v Family Court [2023] NZHC 848 respectively.