Poasa v Lambert

[2025] NZHC 2905

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-3200

[2025] NZHC 2905

UNDER

the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003

IN THE MATTER

of breach of lender’s responsibilities

BETWEEN

ISAMAELI POASA

Plaintiff

AND

BEN LAMBERT

First Defendant

THOMAS JAMES

Second Defendant

Hearing:

On the papers

Parties / Counsel:

Plaintiff in person

BMK Pamatatau for the First and Second Defendants

Judgment:

3 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF GAULT J

(Costs following adjournment)

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 October 2025 at 2:00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Parties / Solicitors / Counsel:

The Plaintiff
Mr BMK Pamatatau, Barrister, Auckland

Mr B Martelli (defendants’ instructing solicitor), Solicitor, Auckland

POASA v LAMBERT [2025] NZHC 2905 [3 October 2025]

[1]                 Following adjournment of the defendants’ application for summary judgment, which occurred at the plaintiff’s request, the defendants’ application for wasted costs is to be determined on the papers.1

[2]                 The defendants seek wasted costs of $4,541 relating to the preparation of written submissions, which would need to be repeated, and filing the memorandum opposing the adjournment – both calculated on a 2B basis.

[3]The plaintiff opposes any order for wasted costs on the grounds that:

(a)the adjournment request was bone fide, arising from genuine self-representation, concurrent legal and academic commitments, and mental health constraints;

(b)the plaintiff complied with all substantive Court directions and acted promptly once the adjournment was granted;

(c)the defendants have suffered no prejudice beyond manageable delay; and

(d)the circumstances did not warrant penalising the plaintiff with a costs order.

Applicable principles

[4]                 The applicable costs principles are well settled. One general principle is that costs follow the event, including on interlocutory applications.2 The position is different where an adjournment is the result of an indulgence. Following adjournment, costs are often awarded against the party seeking an adjournment even though the application could be characterised as successful. This is almost invariably the case where that party’s fault has led to the need for an adjournment, but costs may be awarded even where the applicant is not at fault, recognising the inevitable additional

1      Poasa v Lambert HC Auckland CIV-2025-404-3200, 27 June 2025 (Minute of Gault J). I accept the plaintiff’s late filing of his costs memorandum.

2      High Court Rules 2016, r 14.2(1)(a).

consequential cost to other parties. This also reflects the Court’s approach to wasted costs, referred to next.

[5]                 In addition, the Court has jurisdiction to make an order for wasted costs against a party whose default causes  a  fixture  to  be  vacated.  As  Venning  J  said  in  EBR Holdings Ltd (in liq) v Van Duyn,3 a wasted costs award is to compensate a party who has incurred costs that are wasted and for which any ultimate cost award will not compensate. It recognises that the issues will need to be revisited and some steps repeated. As he earlier explained in Jeffreys v Morgenstern,4 default that leads to vacation of fixtures leads to inconvenience and cost, not only to the other parties to that proceeding, but to other parties awaiting fixtures in the Court. Fixtures allocated by this Court are commitments of limited judicial and Court resources. Time is booked for the case. Other parties who might otherwise have had their cases allocated hearing time are disadvantaged by default which leads to late vacation of fixtures. Where the Court is required to consider wasted costs, it involves a matter of impression and best judgment of the Court at the time.5

Discussion

[6]                 I deal first with the defendants’ application for costs in relation to the adjournment application itself. As indicated, costs are often awarded against the party seeking an adjournment even though the application could be characterised as successful. Here, even accepting the plaintiff is self-represented, the need for an adjournment involved some fault. The plaintiff failed to comply with Court timetable directions leading up to the scheduled 30 June 2025 fixture and the request for adjournment was made late. My minute of 27 June 2025 stated the plaintiff’s non-compliance with Court timetabling orders and late request for adjournment was most unsatisfactory. In any event, there was inevitable additional consequential cost to the defendants who, given the history, reasonably opposed adjournment.

3      EBR Holdings Ltd (in liq) v van Duyn [2018] NZHC 1065 at [14]. See also Burgess v Monk [2015] NZHC 1881 at [15]; and Alexander v Southern Response Earthquake Services  Ltd [2020] NZHC 1660 at [13].

4      Jeffreys v Morgenstern [2013] NZHC 1361 at [31].

5      High Court Rules, r 14.8(1).

[7]                 I award 2B costs of $956 as claimed for the defendants’ memorandum in opposition.

[8]                 Turning to the wasted costs of repeat submissions on the summary judgment application, I accept the defendants have been put to wasted costs as a result of the adjournment. Their submissions, bundle of documents, and bundle of authorities were filed in accordance with the Court timetable, prior to the adjournment request. Further submissions were required following the plaintiff’s evidence. Costs following a successful application for summary judgment would cover only one set of submissions. In the circumstances, a wasted costs order is appropriate in respect of the earlier submissions required to be filed and served since the plaintiff had filed a notice of opposition.

[9]                 In the circumstances, however, I consider that costs for the earlier submissions addressing summary judgment in the absence of any affidavits in opposition, should be awarded on a 2A basis, that is $1,195.

[10]Accordingly, the defendants are entitled to costs of $2,151 rather than the

$4,541 claimed.

Result

[11]              The plaintiff is to pay the defendants costs of $2,151 in respect of the adjournment application and related wasted costs.

Gault J