Shandil v Shandil no.2 HC Auckland CIV-2009-404-008105

[2010] NZHC 2444

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2009-404-008105

BETWEEN  RAM SUMER SHANDIL Appellant

ANDARUNA LALA SHANDIL Respondent

Hearing:         21 December 2010 (On the Papers)

Appearances: M L Clark for the Plaintiff

R F von Keisenberg for the Defendant

Judgment:      21 December 2010

JUDGMENT (NO 2) OF DUFFY J [Re Costs]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Duffy on 21 December 2010 at 12.00 pm, 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  21 December 2010

[1]      I have read the memorandum of the appellant referring to an error in my judgment of 15 December 2010 on costs.   It  is clear to me that this judgment contains an arithmetical error, which has resulted from the insertion of the wrong figure for the total amount of costs awarded to the appellant.  The arithmetical error does not affect the reasoning behind the judgment on costs.  I remain of the view that the appellant is entitled to costs on a 2B basis.   Thus, it is appropriate for me to correct the error in the judgment pursuant to r 11.10 of the High Court Rules.

[2]      Accordingly, I now direct that the appellant is entitled to costs of $7,080. The direction I originally made regarding disbursements still stands.

[3]      I am grateful to the respondent for drawing to my attention the issue of costs to be awarded to the respondent following the appellant’s interlocutory application to adduce  further  evidence.    This  is  something  which  I  did  not  deal  with  in  the judgment of 15 December 2010.

[4]      The question of the respondent’s entitlement to costs for the interlocutory hearing on the application to adduce further evidence is a separate issue from the appellant’s application for costs following the appeal.   I propose to deal with the respondent’s application now.

[5]      I  have  read  the  judgment  of  Priestley J,  who  heard  and  determined  the application to adduce further evidence.   I can see no reason to depart from the recommendation Priestley J made, at [46] of his judgment, on the scale and quantum of costs to be awarded.  Nothing occurred in the hearing of the appeal which would cause  me  to  conclude  that  the  costs  recommendation  of  Priestley  J  should  be departed from.

[6]      Accordingly, I direct that the respondent is entitled to costs for the measure of success she enjoyed in the hearing of the application to adduce further evidence. The costs are to be calculated on a 2B scale for prepartion and appearances in respect of that interlocutory, hearing less 50 per cent.  This amounts to the sum of $1,200 ($2,400, less 50 per cent).

[7]      The respondent has enquired if the costs she has been awarded can be set off against the costs awarded to the appellant.   As matters stand, each party has now received an award of costs.  How the parties adjust their respective liabilities to each other for costs is a matter for them to determine.

Duffy J