Sadchykova v Vaughan

[2024] NZHC 226

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1976, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B,

11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE
https://

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CIV2023-488-000012

[2024] NZHC 226

IN THE MATTER OF

the Relationship (Property) Act 1976

BETWEEN

IRYNA OLEKSANDRIVNA SADCHYKOVA

Appellant

AND

STEPHEN FREDERICK VAUGHAN

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers at Auckland
Judgment:	20 February 2024

JUDGMENT (NO.3) OF POWELL J

[Costs on application for leave to appeal]

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 February 2024 at 4.00 pm pursuant to

r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………..

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

IRYNA OLEKSANDRIVNA SADCHYKOVA v STEPHEN FREDERICK VAUGHAN [2024] NZHC 226 [20

February 2024]

[1]    On 20 December 2023, I dismissed an application for leave to appeal brought by Iryna Sadchykova.1 Ms Sadchykova had sought leave to appeal my decision dismissing an appeal against a decision of the Family Court ordering the sale of the former matrimonial home owned by her and the respondent, Stephen Vaughan.2 As well as dismissing Ms Sadchykova’s application for leave to appeal I also determined costs in respect of that earlier judgment.3

[2]    In dismissing the application for leave I awarded Mr Vaughan costs on a 2B basis. In the event that the amount of those costs could not be agreed I set out a timetable for the parties to file submissions setting out the amount of costs claimed by Mr Vaughan and gave leave for Ms Sadchykova to respond “solely on whether the amounts are calculated correctly”.4

[3]    By memorandum dated 17 January 2024, Mr Hart on behalf of Mr Vaughan claimed costs on a 2B basis in the total of $4,660.50.

[4]    Ms Sadchykova filed a response by the due date but contrary to my directions simply repeated the substantive arguments she had made in respect of both the appeal and application for leave to appeal, and did not address the one issue for which leave had been reserved, namely the amount of the costs claimed by Mr Vaughan on a 2B basis.

[5]    The position is that while I acknowledge Ms Sadchykova is opposed to any award of costs there is no challenge to Mr Hart’s calculation. Having checked that calculation, I am satisfied it is in order.

1      Sadchykova v Vaughan (No.2) [2023] NZHC 3834, at [9] [Leave judgment].

2      Sadchykova v Vaughan [2023] NZHC 1214.

3      Leave judgment, above n 1, at [18].

4      Leave judgment above n 1, at [10].

[6]I therefore order Ms Sadchykova to pay Mr Vaughan costs in the sum of

$4,660.50 in respect of the application for leave to appeal.

Powell J