Round v Round

[2017] NZHC 765

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.