Singh v Rutherford

[2012] NZHC 1000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2011-404-005865 [2012] NZHC 1000

IN THE MATTER OF     an appeal against the decision of the

District Court at Manukau

BETWEEN  GURPREET SINGH MEENA SINGH Appellants

ANDGLENN DOUGLAS RUTHERFORD WENDY KAREN JOLLY Respondents

Hearing:         (On the papers)

Counsel:         DM O'Neill for the Appellants

M Colthart for the Respondents

Judgment:      11 May 2012

CORRIGENDUM AND JUDGMENT AS TO COSTS OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie

On 11 May 2012 at 5.00 pm

Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date

SINGH & ANOR V RUTHERFORD & ANOR HC AK CIV 2011-404-005865 [11 May 2012]

Corrigendum

[1]      I refer to my reserved judgment dated 9 March 2012.

[2]      My clerk  has  been  contacted  by  LexisNexis.    They wish  to  publish  the judgment in the New Zealand Administrative Reports.  They have queried footnote 2 in the judgment.  The third line of the footnote states:

Ibid, at [12–019] and [24–038].

[3]      That reference is in error.  It has remained in the signed judgment as a result of a clerical mistake, or an accidental slip.   Rule 11.10 of the High Court Rules allows the Court to correct a judgment in such circumstances.  Accordingly, I correct the judgment by deleting that reference.

Costs

[4]      I refer to [52] of the judgment.  I held that Mr and Mrs Singh were entitled to their costs on the appeal, which I fixed on a 2B basis.

[5]      A memorandum has been received from counsel for Mr and Mrs Singh.  He advises that he has written to counsel for the respondents in relation to costs, but that he has received no response.  He has calculated costs on a 2B basis together with disbursements in the sum of $4,793.60.

[6]      I have checked counsel’s calculations.  As far as I can ascertain from the file, they are correct.

[7]     The timeline for the respondents to reply has long since expired.   No memorandum has been filed by them in relation to costs.

[8]      Accordingly, I award costs in favour of Mr and Mrs Singh in the sum of

$2,256, together with disbursements of $2,537.60, making a total of $4,793.60.

[9]      It is also clear from the file that the respondents have failed or refused to authorise the Registrar to release to Mr and Mrs Singh the amount paid by way of security for costs, namely $940.

[10]     There can be no reason for that refusal.  I direct the Registrar to release the sum of $940 held by way of security for costs to Mr and Mrs Singh, or to their

solicitors.

Wylie J

Distribution:

DM O’Neill:  [email protected]
M Colthart: [email protected]