Rondova v When Routine Bites Hard Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-1486 [2013] NZHC 2211

BETWEEN VALENTJNA RONDOVA Appellant

AND

WHEN ROUTINE BITES HARD LIMITED

Respondent

Hearing: (on the papers)

Counsel:

M J Robinson for the Appellant
No submissions for the Respondent

Judgment:

28 August 2013

JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J (Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on 28 August 2013 at 4:30 p.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
……………………………………

Counsel:
Mr N Campbell, Barrister, Auckland
Instructing Solicitor:
Mr M J Robinson and Ms C Anderson (for the Appellant), Turner Hopkins, Solicitors, Auckland
Copy to:
Mr L J Turner, Barrister, Auckland
Chris Wilson, Herne Bay Law, Solicitors, Auckland

RONDOVA v WHEN ROUTINE BITES HARD LIMITED [2013] NZHC 2211 [28 August 2013]

[1] The judgment of 20 February 2013 awarded costs in this Court and the District Court to the appellant. There was a direction in the usual way for memoranda from the parties if they could not agree on costs.1

[2] A memorandum for the appellant was filed on 12 July 2013 with an itemisation of costs sought based on the scales under the District Court Rules and the High Court Rules, together with disbursements.

[3] Any memorandum in reply for the respondent was due by 9 August 2013. No memorandum was filed. By minute of 15 August 2013 I gave the respondent until 21 August 2013 to respond. Email advice has been received from Mr Turner, counsel for the respondent at the hearing, that he is no longer instructed as counsel. This led to a registry enquiry to Mr Wilson, solicitor for the respondent, as to whether there would be any response. By email dated 27 August 2013 Mr Wilson advised that he has no instructions from the respondent to take any steps in the matter.

[4] The District Court and High Court costs itemised in the appellant’s memorandum dated 10 July 2013 are in accordance with the scales and are approved. The disbursements are also approved. However, there is an arithmetical error in the addition of the High Court costs – the total is $7,979, not $8,159.

[5] Accordingly, there is an order that the respondent pay costs and disbursements to the appellant in a total sum of $37,023.10.

Woodhouse J

1 Rondova v When Routine Bites Hard Ltd [2013] NZHC 267 at [101].

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining costs in a matter involving the appellant, Valentjna Rondova, and the respondent, When Routine Bites Hard Limited. The case arose from a previous decision wherein the appellant was awarded costs. The court was required to approve the costs claimed by the appellant as detailed in a memorandum filed on 12 July 2013. The respondent was given a deadline to respond to the appellant's costs memorandum, but failed to do so. The court ultimately approved the costs claimed by the appellant, noting an arithmetical error in the original claim that needed correction.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the costs claimed by the appellant, as itemised in the memorandum, were in accordance with the appropriate scales and thus justifiable. The court needed to verify that the costs were not only correctly calculated according to the District Court Rules and the High Court Rules but also that the disbursements claimed were reasonable and necessary. Additionally, the court had to consider the respondent's failure to provide any response or counter-memorandum to the appellant's costs claim. The respondent's silence and lack of instructions to their solicitor or counsel to take any steps in the matter were also significant factors.

The court found that the costs claimed by the appellant were generally in accordance with the scales, except for a minor arithmetical error in the addition of the High Court costs. The total costs and disbursements were therefore adjusted to reflect the correct amount. Given the respondent's lack of response and instructions to their legal representatives, the court proceeded to approve the costs as claimed by the appellant, with the noted correction. The court's judgment resulted in an order for the respondent to pay the appellant a total sum of $37,023.10, representing the approved costs and disbursements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	(on the papers)
Counsel:	M J Robinson for the Appellant No submissions for the Respondent
Judgment:	28 August 2013