Poros v Bax

[2020] NZHC 1849

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1976, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B,

11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE

https://www.justice.govt.nz/family/about/restriction-on-publishing-judgments/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2019-419-0145

[2020] NZHC 1849

BETWEEN

SPYRIDON POROS

Appellant

AND

KYLIE BRIDGET BAX

First respondent

HELEN-GAYE BAX and WILLIAM

GRAHAM BAX as trustees of the GOLDEYE TRUST

Second respondents

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

J D Noble for the appellant

DAT Chambers QC for the respondents

Date of judgment:

28 July 2020

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 28 July 2020 at 4.00pm.

Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:

DAT Chambers QC, Auckland Boyle Mathieson, Auckland

POROS v BAX [2020] NZHC 1849 [28 July 2020]

[1]  My judgment of 7 July 2020 dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal and, noting Mr Poros’ status as an aided person,1 reserved costs.2

[2]                 The respondents seek an order under s 45(5) of the Legal Services Act 2011. Mr Poros would have been ordered to pay them costs in the amount of $26,768, plus disbursements of $609.36, if his liability for costs had not been affected by that section.

[3]                 For the respondents, Deborah Chambers QC quantifies their category 2 costs on band B’s time allocations, increased to band C for preparation of written submissions in response to Mr Poros’ discursive submissions. I accept a comparatively large amount of time for written submissions in response is considered reasonable,3 justifying band C for that step.

[4]                 For Mr Poros, Jeremy Noble argues against any costs liability on grounds of Ms Bax’s alleged conduct in the Family Court, being such if engaged in by Mr Poros would have rendered him liable to costs notwithstanding his status as an aided person.4 Mr Noble concedes no such disqualifying behaviour continued in the High Court, but contends no award of costs nonetheless is justified here.

[5]                 Costs are awarded only with respect to steps taken in this Court. The respondents, however, failed on their cross-appeal, making them liable for some costs to Mr Poros. Although none is claimed, a comparatively small amount of time is considered reasonable for steps on his response to the cross-appeal, justifying band  A time allocations for steps 53 and 56, amount to 1.5 days, or $3,585, to be deducted from the respondents’ claim.

[6]                 I therefore order an order for costs in the amount of $23,183.00, plus disbursements in the amount of $609.36, would have been made against Mr Poros with respect to this proceeding if s 45 had not affected his liability.

—Jagose J

1      Legal Services Act 2011, s 45.

2      Poros v Bax [2020] NZHC 1602 at [70].

3      At [18]–[19].

4      Legal Services Act 2011, s 45(2) and (3).