RH v AH

[2021] NZHC 1839

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-002468

[2021] NZHC 1839

UNDER

Family Violence Act 2018 and Family Court Rules 2002

IN THE MATTER

of a strike out application for discharge of protection order, occupation order and ancillary furniture order

BETWEEN

RH
Appellant

AND

AH

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	20 July 2021

JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

(Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 4.30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:

Norwest City Law Ltd, Waimauku. Barter Law, Auckland.

RH v AH [2021] NZHC 1839 [20 July 2021]

[1]                 RH appealed a decision of Judge Parsons in the Family Court at Auckland on 12 November 2020 striking out an application by RH to discharge final protection and ancillary orders made against her.

[2]On 30 April 2021, I dismissed RH’s appeal. I concluded as follows:1

Quite apart from the specific points of appeal, I consider Judge Parsons rightly ordered a strike-out of the application to discharge the protection orders. Even accepting RH’s evidence except to the extent it was clearly wrong, had the discharge application gone ahead it was destined to fail. The application also constituted an abuse of process because the majority of the argument before Judge Parsons was a repeat of RH’s case before Judge Manuel on which rulings had been made against her and not appealed. While the decision to strike out was a robust one given the provisions of s 110, I consider it appropriate.

[3]                 I directed that the respondent file submissions on costs and the appellant file submissions in reply.

[4]                 The respondent has sought costs on a 2B basis, but very responsibly advised that his total actual costs are in fact less than that amount, for which the appellant gets the benefit as she would otherwise be facing a 2B costs award. 2B costs are standard on an appeal.

[5]                 The appellant opposes the costs sought and says they should be limited to security for costs or fall under Band A if costs are to be awarded at all. The appellant also argues that the respondent took a step or steps that were unnecessary and that in a case of this nature costs are not appropriate.

[6]                 I disagree and consider 2B costs entirely appropriate. As noted, 2B costs are standard on an appeal. There is no reason to depart from standard practice in this case. In fact, had it been relevant, I would have given serious consideration to increased costs. All steps taken were necessary and the appeal was unmeritorious for the reasons set out in my judgment. The appellant does not suggest that the calculation made by the respondent of costs on a 2B basis is incorrect, nor do I consider it to be. Those costs total $11,233. The actual legal fees total $9,205.75.

1      RH v AH [2021] NZHC 957 at [34].

[7]                 I therefore make an award of costs in the sum of $9,205.75 including GST, plus disbursements of $50.

[8]                 The respondent noted that he would be seeking indemnity costs if for any reason his calculation of 2B scale costs was in error. There being no error in the calculation, there is no need for me to make any finding on the question of indemnity costs.

Hinton J