Rafiq v Latitude Financial Services Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-108

[2023] NZHC 1831

BETWEEN
RAZDAN RAFIQ

Plaintiff

AND

LATITUDE FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

First Defendant

BAYCORP (NZ) LIMITED

Second Defendant

On the papers 6 October 2023

Counsel:

Plaintiff in person/respondent

W R Potter for First Defendant/applicant Y Dong for Second Defendant/applicant

Judgment:

6 October 2023

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Costs on application)

Solicitors:
Russell McVeagh, Auckland
W R Potter, Barrister, Auckland

RAFIQ v LATITUDE FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1831 [6 October 2023]

[1] The plaintiff in his substantive proceedings brings a claim by way of summary judgment against the defendants concerning various finance transactions in which he was recorded as the debtor and the steps taken by the defendants, respectively a finance company and a debt collection company, to recover the debts.

[2] The defendants applied to the court for orders for security for costs, which the plaintiff opposed. In my judgment of 3 July 2023, I granted the defendants’ applications, ordering that the plaintiff provide security for costs in the sum of $8,000 in respect of the second defendant, and a total of $35,000, to be paid in three tranches, in respect of the first defendant.1

[3] I noted, in respect of costs, that it appeared appropriate, subject to any further submissions on the point, that the costs in this matter be awarded on a 2B basis to the defendants as the successful parties.2 I directed that any application for costs should be filed within five days of the date of that judgment, any response to be filed by memorandum within a further five days and any reply within a further three days.3

[4] The first defendant has accordingly now applied for costs and disbursements on the interlocutory application in the sum of $6,116.50, calculated on a 2B basis.

[5] The plaintiff has opposed “all the costs applications by those defendants” but has given no reasons for his opposition.

[6] Rule 14.2(1)(a) of the High Court Rules 2016 (the Rules) provides as a general principle that costs follow the event. There is no reason why costs should not follow the event in the usual manner. The plaintiff has put forward no grounds to oppose that position or to suggest that the general principle should be departed from in the present case.

1 Rafiq v Latitude Financial Services Ltd [2023] NZHC 1690 at [45].
2 At [46].
3 At [46].

[7] I am satisfied that 2B is the appropriate basis for costs, the proceedings being of average complexity and requiring a normal amount of time.

[8] Turning to the costs as calculated, the costs as claimed follow the allocated days as set out in the schedules to the Rules. I note that none of the intermediate calculations in the table contained in the appendix to the first defendant’s memorandum are correct. However, the overall amount, taking the overall allocated days against the applicable daily recovery rate in the Rules, is correctly calculated.

[9] That amount appears reasonable, and I am satisfied it is appropriate that the plaintiff pay costs of $6,116.50 to the first defendant as claimed.

Grice J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Rafiq, the plaintiff, who has brought a claim for summary judgment against Latitude Financial Services Limited, the first defendant, and Baycorp (NZ) Limited, the second defendant, regarding various finance transactions where Rafiq was the debtor and the steps taken by the defendants to recover the debts. The defendants sought orders for security for costs which were previously granted by the court, with Rafiq ordered to provide security for costs in the sum of $8,000 for the second defendant and $35,000 for the first defendant. In this proceeding, the first defendant has applied for costs and disbursements on the interlocutory application in the sum of $6,116.50. Rafiq has opposed the costs application without providing any reasons. The court considered that the proceedings were of average complexity and required a normal amount of time, hence the 2B basis for costs was appropriate. The court found that the overall amount claimed by the first defendant, despite some errors in intermediate calculations, was correctly calculated and reasonable, ordering Rafiq to pay the first defendant $6,116.50 in costs.

The primary legal issue in this case was whether the general principle of costs following the event should be applied, and if so, in what amount. The court noted that Rafiq had not provided any grounds to oppose the general principle or to suggest a departure from it. The court examined the basis for costs and determined that the 2B basis was appropriate given the nature of the proceedings. Additionally, the court scrutinized the costs claimed by the first defendant, finding that despite some calculation errors, the total amount was correctly calculated and reasonable, thus affirming the award of costs.

The reasoning of Grice J in this case was rooted in the principle that costs should follow the event in litigation, a fundamental aspect of legal proceedings. Grice J confirmed that there were no grounds presented by Rafiq to deviate from this principle. The court assessed the basis for costs, noting the proceedings' average complexity and the normal time required, leading to the decision that the 2B basis was suitable. The court also acknowledged the errors in the intermediate calculations provided by the first defendant but confirmed that the overall amount claimed was correct and reasonable. Consequently, the court granted the first defendant's application for costs, ordering Rafiq to pay $6,116.50.

In conclusion, the court awarded costs of $6,116.50 to the first defendant, Latitude Financial Services Limited, based on the 2B basis for costs. The decision was made after considering the general principle that costs should follow the event and the specific circumstances of the case, including the complexity of the proceedings and the reasonable nature of the costs claimed despite minor calculation errors. The plaintiff, Rafiq, was ordered to pay the specified amount to the first defendant.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established