Prasad v Real Estate Agents Authority (Complaints Assessment Committee 416)

[2020] NZHC 1512

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-301

[2020] NZHC 1512

BETWEEN

INDRA PRASAD

Appellant

AND

REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE 416)

Respondent

CIV-2019-404-982

BETWEEN

REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE 416)

Appellant

AND

INDRA PRASAD

Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

30 June 2020

COSTS JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 June 2020 at 4:30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Real Estate Agents Authority

PRASAD v REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE 416) [2020] NZHC 1512 [30 June 2020]

Introduction

[1]This is a costs judgment.

[2]        In my judgment of 28 February 2020,1 I decided two appeals resulting from a finding against Ms Prasad by the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal.

[3]        The first appeal was by Ms Prasad  against  the Tribunal’s  finding against Ms Prasad on two charges going to her professional conduct.

[4]        The second appeal was by the Real Estate Agents Authority (Complaints Assessment Committee 416) against the penalties awarded against Ms Prasad by the Tribunal.

[5]        Ms Prasad did not appear at the hearing of the appeals. Accordingly, I decided Ms Prasad’s appeal on the papers. I dismissed the appeal.

[6]        I allowed the Authority’s appeal and ordered cancellation of Ms Prasad’s licence.

Application for costs

[7]        The Authority now applies for costs against Ms Prasad. It submits costs should be assessed on a 2B basis except for its submissions in respect of Ms Prasad’s appeal. Because those submissions involved only a response to Ms Prasad’s notice of appeal, the Authority claims costs on a 2A basis.

[8]        The Authority recognises that both appeals were case managed together and claims for only a single allocation for steps where the appeals overlap.

[9]        I am satisfied that the proper scale for calculating costs is 2B apart from the step claimed as 2A.

1      Prasad v Real Estate Agents Authority (Complaints Assessment Committee 416) [2020] NZHC 335.

[10]      I accept the time allocation claims set out in tables in the Authority’s costs memorandum dated 9 April 2020.

Decision

[11]I order costs in favour of the Authority on a 2B basis in the sum of $19,478.50.

[12]I order Ms Prasad to pay the Authority’s disbursements in the sum of $590.

Brewer J