Shandil v Shandil HC Auckland CIV-2009-404-008105

[2010] NZHC 2435

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2009-404-008105

BETWEEN  RAM SUMER SHANDIL Appellant

ANDARUNA LALA SHANDIL Respondent

Hearing:         15 December 2010 (On the Papers)

Appearances: M L Clark for the Plaintiff

R F von Keisenberg for the Defendant

Judgment:      15 December 2010

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J [Re Costs]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Duffy on 15 December 2010 at 11.00 am, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Counsel:     R F von Keisenberg P O Box 42258 Orakei Auckland 1745 for the Plaintiff

Solicitors:   Vallant Hooker and Partners P O Box 47088 Ponsonby Auckland 1144 for the

Defendant

SHANDIL V SHANDIL HC AK CIV-2009-404-008105  15 December 2010

[1]      I have read and considered the parties’ memoranda on costs.  The proceeding was  categorised  as  a  category 2B proceeding  for  the  purposes  of  r  14.3.    The appellant seeks costs on a 2B basis as per the schedule attached to his memorandum. The costs come to $2,820.

[2]      In addition, the appellant seeks disbursements, being: a $400 filing fee; a

$1,000 setting down fee; and $276 for photocopying the bundle of documents for the appeal.  The disbursements appear to me to be reasonable.

[3]      In this appeal, the appellant enjoyed a large measure of success.  The rule is that in the absence of particular reasons to the contrary, costs follow the event.

[4]      The respondent opposes an award of costs, and submits that costs should lie where they fall, due to the appellant not being successful on all issues.

[5]      I am not persuaded that this is the appropriate approach to take in this case.  I do not think the points on which the appellant was unsuccessful provide reasons for departing from the usual approach in which costs follow the event.

[6]      The points on which the appellant did succeed were important and material points, which had the effect of causing this Court to set aside the decision of the Family Court and to send the matter back for rehearing in its entirety.   In those circumstances, the outcome can only be seen as a success for the appellant, and one which would entitle him to enjoy costs in the usual way.

[7]      Accordingly, costs as sought by the appellant are ordered.

Duffy J