Stylo Medical Services Ltd v Hum Hospitality Ltd

[2022] NZHC 1237

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-365

[2022] NZHC 1237

UNDER

section 244 of the Property Law Act 2007

IN THE MATTER

of an application for cancellation of Dead of Lease dated 22 January 2011 and possession

BETWEEN

STYLO MEDICAL SERVICES LTD

Applicant

AND

HUM HOSPITALITY LTD

Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

31 May 2022

COSTS JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 May 2022 at 10 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Winston Wang & Associates (Auckland) for Applicant

STYLO MEDICAL SERVICES LTD v HUM HOSPITALITY LTD [2022] NZHC 1237 [31 May 2022]

Introduction

[1]                 In my Judgment of 20 December 20211 I decided the final quantum of damages outstanding under my Judgment of 11 November 2020.2

[2]                 I held that Stylo is entitled to costs also on the steps in the proceeding which culminated in my Judgment of 20 December 2021.

[3]This Judgment decides those costs.

Background

[4]                 Mr Parmenter, for Stylo, filed his costs memorandum on 20 January 2022. He submits that 2B scale costs amount to $14,579 (plus $100 disbursements). He submits that a 50 per cent uplift on scale costs is reasonable on the basis that Hum continued to take unnecessary steps or arguments.

[5]                 On 30 March 2022, I issued a Minute allowing an application by Ms Armitage on behalf of Hum to extend the time in which she may file a costs memorandum. The extension was to 14 May 2022.

[6]                 By Minute of 19 May 2022, I refused a further application by Ms Armitage to extend the time for filing Hum’s costs memorandum to 30 August 2022. I said I would decide  the  costs  issue  on  my  knowledge  of  the  case  and  having  regard  to   Mr Parmenter’s memorandum.

[7]                 In my view, Stylo is entitled to the scale costs it claims. Not all are strictly in accordance with the scale. In one instance a memorandum is treated as the equivalent of an interlocutory application and in another instance a memorandum is treated as submissions in an interlocutory hearing. But that is a reasonable response to the situation created by Ms Armitage.

1      Stylo Medical Services Ltd v Hum Hospitality Ltd [2021] NZHC 3552.

2      Stylo Medical Services Ltd v Hum Hospitality Ltd [2020] NZHC 2969.

[8]                 I am also of the view that Stylo is entitled to increased costs. The 50 per cent uplift sought is well within reasonable bounds.

[9]                 Mr Parmenter’s memorandum of 28 January 2022 sets out the many unnecessary, irrelevant and prolix attempts by Ms Armitage aimed at avoiding the consequences of my judgments of 11 November 2020 and 20 December 2021. I will not repeat them.

[10]              Ms Armitage is the guarantor of Hum’s obligations under the subject lease to Stylo. That is the main reason why I allowed her to represent Hum on the issue of costs. But that does not mean she is to be held to a lesser standard than counsel when it comes to assessing an uplift for costs. Put another way, a litigant represented by counsel cannot be expected to bear a greater litigation cost because unnecessary steps are taken by a lay litigant.

Decision

[11]              I award 2B scale costs against Hum in favour of Stylo in the sum of $14,579, plus disbursements of $100.

[12]              Pursuant to r 14.6(3)(b)(ii), I  direct  Hum to  pay  Stylo increased  costs of  50 per cent, being $7,289.50.

[13]In sum, I order Hum to pay Stylo costs of $21,868.50 plus disbursements of

$100.

Brewer J