Robinson v Beaman - [2022] NZHC 3590

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2021-485-000149

[2022] NZHC 3590

IN THE MATTER OF the Estate of GLENN CHRISTOPHER BEAMAN

BETWEEN

NATALIE CHRISTINE ROBINSON

Applicant

AND

SHANE MICHAEL BEAMAN, JARROD JASON BEAMAN and KIM McHARDY as

litigation guardians for FYNN and AVA BEAMAN

Respondents/ Adult Interested Parties

Hearing: on the papers

Counsel:

E J H Morrison & J Y Leenoh for the Applicant E Telle for Shane & Jarrod Beaman

A Gilchrist for Kim McHardy as Litigation Guardian for Fynn & Ava Beaman

M Phillipps for Temporary Administrator Vicki Ammundsen P J Napier for non-party (Mr Robinson)

Judgment:

21 December 2022

JUDGMENT OF TAHANA J

[As to costs of non-party discovery application]

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 December 2022 at 3.30pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
K3 Legal Limited, Auckland KooTelle Lawyers, Auckland
McHardy Parbery Lawyers, Auckland Southern Cross Chambers, Auckland
Vicki Ammundsen Trust Law Limited, Auckland

ROBINSON v BEAMAN [As to costs of non-party discovery application] [2022] NZHC 3590 [21 December 2022]

Introduction

[1] Mr Shane Beaman applied for non-party discovery against Mr Robinson. By judgment dated 23 September 2022, I dismissed Mr Beaman’s application.1 I initially reserved costs but subsequently granted leave for Mr Robinson to seek costs.2

[2] Mr Robinson now seeks indemnity costs of $12,460.00 plus GST and the disbursement of $110.00, being a total of $14,439.00. Those costs include the costs of opposing the discovery application and costs related to this application.

[3] Mr Beaman opposes the application and says the application should be dismissed and if costs are to be awarded, they should be paid out of the estate or limited to no more than $7,000.00.

[4] Counsel for Ms Robinson submits that any costs order should be met by Mr Beaman personally and not paid out of the estate.

Legal principles

[5]Rule 8.22(3) of High Court Rules 2016 (HCR) provides that:

8.22 Costs of discovery

…

(3)If an order is made under rule 8.20(2) or 8.21(2), the Judge may, if the Judge thinks it just, order the applicant to pay to the person from whom discovery is sought the whole or part of that person’s expenses (including solicitor and client costs) incurred in relation to the application and in complying with any order made on the application.

[6] Despite r 8.22(3) referring to a non-party’s costs when an order for discovery is made, this Court has determined that the same matters apply when considering costs of successfully opposing a non-party discovery application.3 That is, whether it is just that the whole or part of the non-party’s costs be paid.

1      Robinson v Beaman [costs and discovery] [2022] NZHC 2451.
2      Robinson v Beaman HC Auckland CIV-2021-485-0149, 29 November 2022 (Minute of Tahana J (Costs – non-party discovery application)).
3      AFI Management Pty Ltd v Lepionka & Co Investments Ltd [2018] NZHC 892 at [4].

[7] In considering the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Robinson v Beaman

Details

AGLC: Robinson v Beaman [2022] NZHC 3590
Case: [2022] NZHC 3590
Decision Date: 21 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Robinson v Beaman involved an application for non-party discovery by Shane Beaman against Mr Robinson. The application was dismissed by Tahana J on 23 September 2022. Mr Robinson subsequently sought indemnity costs for opposing the discovery application. Mr Beaman opposed the application for costs, arguing that if costs were to be awarded, they should be paid out of the estate or limited to no more than $7,000.00. Counsel for Ms Robinson submitted that any costs order should be met by Mr Beaman personally and not paid out of the estate.

The legal issue before the court was whether the application for costs should be dismissed due to exceptional circumstances, and if not, whether the quantum of costs sought should be awarded to Mr Robinson. The court considered whether Mr Robinson had acted reasonably in opposing the non-party discovery application, and whether the costs sought were reasonable in all the circumstances.

The court found that Mr Robinson had acted reasonably in opposing the non-party discovery application. Although Mr Robinson had an interest in the outcome of the proceeding, this did not elevate him to a party in the proceeding. The court also found that the costs sought were reasonable, taking into account the volume of material that needed to be reviewed and the scale costs for filing an opposition to an interlocutory application and preparing written submissions.

The court further found that the costs should not be paid out of the estate, as there were no exceptional circumstances that justified this. The court emphasised the principle that costs should follow the event and should not be paid out of an estate solely on the basis that the proceedings involved a deceased's estate.

As a result, the court ordered that Mr Beaman pay the following costs of Mr Robinson: (a) $8,000.00, being Mr Robinson's reasonable actual costs of responding to Mr Beaman's application for non-party discovery; (b) $1,000.00 in respect of Mr Robinson's reasonable actual costs of this application; and (c) disbursements of $110.00.

Orders