Round v Round

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2015-409-000804

[2017] NZHC 765

BETWEEN
ERIC CHARLES ROUND

Plaintiff

AND

MARTIN CHARLES ROUND

Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

G M Brodie for the plaintiff Defendant in person

Judgment:

24 April 2017

JUDGMENT No. 2 OF PALMER J (COSTS)

This judgment is delivered by me on 24 April 2017 at 3.45 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

.....................................................
Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
G M Brodie, Barrister, Christchurch Purnell Creighton, Christchurch

Defendant in person
M C Round, Christchurch

ROUND v ROUND – COSTS [2017] NZHC 765 [24 April 2017]

[1] I delivered judgment in these proceedings on 14 March 2017 and awarded costs to the plaintiff.1 If the parties could not agree on costs I gave leave for brief submissions to be filed within 20 working days of the date of judgment.

[2] The plaintiff seeks itemised costs on a 2B basis, and disbursements, in the amount of $58,858. The defendant submits the parties should pay their own costs because: before trial, the defendant offered the plaintiff an opportunity to go to mediation rather than going to trial; and Mr David Round’s behaviour subsequent to trial has been reprehensible and that should be taken into account.

[3] The rule in New Zealand law is that costs follow the event – a losing party pays a winning party a contribution towards costs. This is established under r 14.2(a) of the High Court Rules 2016. It is characterised by the Supreme Court as “a fundamental principle”.2

[4] The defendant’s mediation proposal does not displace that rule. The defendant should have done more than that if he wished to avoid losing this case. Behaviour subsequent to trial and decision is not before me for further decision and is not relevant to the award of costs. I can only reiterate the hope I expressed in the judgment that the parties can renew their family relationships on a new and, I should add, positive, basis.3

[5] I have identified two mathematical errors in the plaintiff’s costs calculations.4 Otherwise, they are in order. I award costs in the amount sought by the plaintiff against the defendant, adjusted for the mathematical errors, for $60,246.

Palmer J

1      Round v Round [2017] NZHC 428 at [102].
2      Manukau Golf Club Inc v Shoye Venture Ltd [2012] NZSC 109, [2013] 1 NZLR 305 at [8].
3 At [100].
4      The plaintiff’s totals for steps 20, 30 and 31 are each $15 short and the plaintiff’s summary uses the wrong total for scale costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, the case of Round v Round was heard on the papers. The plaintiff, Eric Charles Round, sought costs and disbursements in the amount of $58,858 from the defendant, Martin Charles Round. The matter involved a family dispute with a complex background, and the court had previously awarded costs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff now sought detailed costs, while the defendant argued that the parties should bear their own costs due to an unsuccessful mediation attempt and subsequent reprehensible behavior. The court was required to decide whether the defendant's arguments were sufficient to alter the standard rule that costs follow the event, and if the plaintiff's costs were correctly calculated.

The court considered the defendant's argument that the unsuccessful mediation attempt should lead to a different outcome in terms of costs. However, the court held that this did not change the standard rule that a losing party pays the winning party's costs. The court also noted that behavior subsequent to the trial and decision was not relevant to the award of costs. The court reiterated its hope that the parties could improve their family relationships in the future. The court identified two mathematical errors in the plaintiff's costs calculations but found the rest of the costs to be in order.

The court awarded the plaintiff the costs in the amount sought, adjusted for the mathematical errors, totaling $60,246. The court emphasized the fundamental principle that costs follow the event, and the defendant's unsuccessful mediation attempt and subsequent behavior did not change this outcome. The court also highlighted the importance of accurate cost calculations, correcting the mathematical errors in the plaintiff's submissions. The final orders of the court were that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs, adjusted as noted, in the amount of $60,246.

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
Appearances:	G M Brodie for the plaintiff Defendant in person
Judgment:	24 April 2017