Registrar of the Real Estate Agents Authority v A

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF RESPONDENT PROHIBITED BY S 201 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF REAL ESTATE AGENCY EMPLOYING RESPONDENT PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2017-412-000032

[2018] NZHC 1934

BETWEEN
REGISTRAR OF THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY

Appellant

AND

A

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

M Hodge for the Appellant

C S Withnall QC and M Ryan for the Respondent

Judgment:

31 July 2018

JUDGMENT OF NATION J AS TO COSTS

[1] In a judgment of 28 November 2017, the appellant was successful in appealing a decision of the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal which had renewed the respondent’s salesperson’s licence.1

1 Real Estate Agents Authority v A [2017] NZHC 2929.

REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY v A [2018] NZHC 1934 [31 July 2018]

[2] In my judgment, I directed that, if no agreement was reached over costs, a memorandum for the appellant was to be filed by 13 December 2017 and a response for the respondent by 22 December 2017.

[3] I subsequently extended the time for the respondent’s memorandum to be filed to 12 February 2018.

[4] In my minute of 1 February 2018, I indicated that, if no memorandum was filed for the respondent, I would determine costs on the basis of the appellant’s memorandum which was filed on 13 December 2017.

[5] The appellant sought costs on a 2B basis. On that basis, the costs would have been $14,495. The appellant however indicated that its actual costs amounted to only
$13,950. The appellant sought reimbursement for those costs, together with disbursements of $1,230, comprising:

(i)filing fee of $540 for commencing the appeal;

(ii)the scheduling fee of $640; and

(iii)filing fee for sealing the costs order of $50.

[6]The appellant sought an award of costs and disbursements in the sum of

$15,180.

[7] I am satisfied such order is appropriate. I now make an order that the respondent pay the appellant $15,180 for costs and disbursements in these proceedings.

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland
C S Withnall QC, Barrister, Dunedin.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand Dunedin Registry heard an application for costs from the Registrar of the Real Estate Agents Authority, who had successfully appealed a decision by the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal to renew the respondent’s salesperson’s licence. The respondent did not file a memorandum in relation to the costs application, despite the court’s indication that it would determine the matter on the basis of the appellant’s memorandum if no response was received. The appellant sought costs on a 2B basis, amounting to $14,495, but indicated that its actual costs were $13,950. The appellant also sought reimbursement for disbursements of $1,230, including filing fees and a scheduling fee. The court was required to determine whether the appellant’s costs and disbursements should be awarded to the appellant.

The court noted that the respondent had not filed a memorandum in relation to the costs application, despite being given an opportunity to do so and the court’s indication that it would determine the matter on the basis of the appellant’s memorandum if no response was received. The court found that the appellant’s actual costs were $13,950, which was less than the amount sought on a 2B basis. The court also found that the appellant’s disbursements of $1,230 were reasonable and necessary. The court concluded that the appellant was entitled to reimbursement for its costs and disbursements in the sum of $15,180.

The court made an order that the respondent pay the appellant $15,180 for costs and disbursements in these proceedings. The court found that the respondent had not provided any justification for not filing a memorandum in relation to the costs application, and that the appellant’s costs and disbursements were reasonable and necessary. The court noted that the respondent had been given an opportunity to file a memorandum and to respond to the appellant’s costs application, but had failed to do so. The court concluded that the appellant was entitled to reimbursement for its costs and disbursements in the sum of $15,180.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established