Stanley v Fielding-Link

[2023] NZHC 3451

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2022-404-1257

[2023] NZHC 3451

UNDER

Section 8 of the Insolvency (Cross Border) Act 2006

IN THE MATTER OF

The bankrupt estate of Kaye Suzanne Fielding-Link (England)

BETWEEN

PAUL STANLEY and PAUL BARBER

Plaintiffs

AND

KAY SUZANNE FIELDING-LINK also

known as KAY SUZANNE LINK

Defendant

On the papers
Counsel:	K J Crossland and J S Langston for the plaintiffs R J Latton for the defendant
Judgment:	30 November 2023

COSTS JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 November 2023 at 2.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

STANLEY and BARBER v FIELDING-LINK [2023] NZHC 3451 [30 November 2023]

[1]                 In my judgment dated 21 August 2023, I said the plaintiffs were entitled      to costs. The parties have not reached agreement on quantum.

[2]                 By memorandum dated 4 September 2023, the plaintiffs provisionally sought costs and disbursements in the sum of $19,949.00. That amount was provisional as the plaintiffs were awaiting a decision by Woolford J on wasted costs claimed by the plaintiffs on an earlier formal proof hearing.  The  plaintiffs indicated they may file  a further memorandum if Woolford J disallowed some of the items claimed by the plaintiffs. Woolford J delivered his judgment on wasted costs on 13 October 2023, accepting most but disallowing one of the items claimed by the plaintiffs. In the time since, the plaintiffs have not filed a further memorandum. Accordingly, I will determine costs based on the original memorandum.

[3]                 In that memorandum, the plaintiffs claimed for some steps that are applicable to originating applications. This was not an originating application. It was a proceeding commenced under Part 18 of the High Court Rules 2016. Such proceedings are commenced by filing a statement of claim. That is what the plaintiffs did in this case. Accordingly, their costs claim could have been higher (even allowing for the fact that I would  disallow  the  claim  for  preparation  of  submissions  for the formal proof hearing that was abandoned,  as that should have been claimed     as a wasted cost).

[4]                 The net result is that the plaintiffs are entitled to slightly more than they sought. Given that the plaintiffs did not put that higher amount to the defendant, I order the defendant to pay costs and disbursements in the amount claimed in the memorandum, being $19,949.00.

Campbell J