Tait-Jamieson v Cadrona Ski Resort Limited HC Christchurch CIV-2010-425-000181

[2011] NZHC 1667

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2010-425-000181

UNDER  the District Courts Act 1947

IN THE MATTER OF     an appeal against the Judgment of the

District Court at Queenstown in CIV-2008-
059-000151 given on 23 March 2010

BETWEEN  PETER JOHN TAIT-JAMIESON Appellant

ANDCARDRONA SKI RESORT LIMITED Respondent

Counsel:         M Colthart for Appellant

A M Cunninghame for Respondent

Judgment:      7 November 2011

JUDGMENT OF HON JUSTICE FRENCH

as to Costs

[1]      In my decision of 16 August 2011, I dismissed Mr Tait-Jamieson’s appeal against a decision of the District Court.   The District Court Judge had held Mr Tait-Jamieson liable under an unsigned guarantee on the basis of the authenticated signature fiction.  I held that the Judge’s reasoning was wrong but that the decision was justifiable on other grounds, namely estoppel.

[2]      As regards costs, I stated that my expectation was that these would be able to be resolved.  If, however, agreement did not prove possible, the parties were to file submissions.

[3]      Unfortunately, agreement did not prove possible.

TAIT-JAMIESON V CARDRONA SKI RESORT LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2010-425-000181 7 November

2011

[4]      The respondent, Cardrona, has applied for costs on the basis that it was successful, Mr Tait-Jamieson’s appeal being dismissed.

[5]      The general principle, of course, is that costs follow the event.

[6]      However, the circumstances here are rather unusual.   Estoppel was never pleaded or argued before the District Court, nor was it argued at the hearing of the appeal.  It was a matter I first raised after the appeal hearing and then granted leave to argue.  As Mr Colthart points out, the granting of leave after the appeal hearing had been concluded was an indulgence to Cardrona.

[7]      Having  regard  to  those  circumstances,  I  consider  that  as  in  the  case  of

Pioneer Insurance Co Ltd, costs should lie where they fall.[1]

[1] Pioneer Insurance Co Ltd v White Heron Motor Lodge Ltd [2008] NZCA 450 (CA).

[8]      For   completeness,   I   should   also   record   that   in   her   submissions, Ms Cunninghame requests an order for interest to be awarded from 23 May 2008 to the date of my decision (as opposed to the District Court judgment) at the rate of 8.4 per cent.   However, no order is required.   A judgment debt automatically carries interest from the time judgment is given until it is satisfied.[2]

[2] District Courts Act 1947, s 65A.

Solicitors:

Carter Atmore Law, Auckland

(Counsel: M Colthart, Auckland) Anderson Lloyd, Dunedin