Singh v Devi

[2020] NZHC 540

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-355

[2020] NZHC 540

UNDER

the Care of Children Act 2004

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal from a decision of the Family Court at Auckland

BETWEEN

AVINASH SINGH

Appellant

AND

JYOTI DEVI

Respondent

On the papers:
Judgment:	17 March 2020

JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

[Re: Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 17 March 2020 at 4:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………………………………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
Victorian Lawyers, Papakura

Party:
A Singh

SINGH v DEVI [2020] NZHC 540 [17 March 2020]

[1]                   By Minute dated 27 June 2018 I recorded that, pursuant to s 143 of the Care of Children Act 2004, this appeal against a decision of the Family Court was to be treated as abandoned by the appellant following his failure to pay security for costs. I also noted that the appellant had failed to file and serve his submissions, a chronology and the common bundle as directed. I reserved the question of costs.

[2]                   The respondent has applied for costs on a 2B basis of $8,028 and also seeks an uplift of 50 per cent from scale on the basis the appellant acted vexatiously, frivolously, improperly and unnecessarily in commencing and continuing the appeal.1 Counsel submits the appeal was meritless and abusive, intended only to vex the respondent.

[3]                   Turning to the primary question of scale costs, I note that no notice of opposition was filed. The appeal was disposed of in the manner noted above before that step was required to be taken. Accordingly, I do not award costs in respect of my work that may have been done towards providing that notice. I do award costs on a 2B basis in respect of counsel for the respondent’s preparing for, filing a memorandum in advance of, and appearing at the first case management conference.

[4]                   Mr Purusram’s claim for two days for the preparation of costs submissions is improper. His submissions were only three pages in length, relied largely on the recitation of matters noted in my Minute and (largely irrelevant) provisions of the High Court Rules, and made bare assertions as to the respondent’s entitlement to costs. I make no award of costs in respect of that memorandum.

[5]  A situation such as this which has ended speedily and not taken up much time does not justify increased costs.

[6]                   The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs in the amount of $2,453 in respect of the steps identified above. I would not in any event expect reasonable actual costs to much exceed that sum.

Hinton J

1      Counsel referring to High Court Rules 2016, r 14.6(3)(b)-(d).