Tucker v Real Estate Agents Authority

[2017] NZHC 2606

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2016-404-002859 [2017] NZHC 2606

BETWEEN

GRANT TUCKER

Appellant

AND

REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	N M Pender for appellant M H Hodge and K H Lawson-Bradshaw for respondent
Judgment:	25 October 2017

JUDGMENT OF KATZ J [Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 25 October 2017 at 3:00pm

Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:           Meredith Connell, Auckland

Franks Ogilvie, Wellington

TUCKER v REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY [2017] NZHC 2606 [25 October 2017]

Introduction

[1]      On 10 August 2017 I dismissed Grant Tucker’s appeal against two decisions

of the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal (“Judgment”):1

(a)       First, that Mr Tucker was guilty of two charges of misconduct.2

(b)      Second,  that  cancelling  Mr  Tucker’s  real  estate  licence  was  an

appropriate penalty.3

[2]      I now determine the issue of costs.

[3]      Ms Lawson-Bradshaw, for the Real Estate Agents Authority (“Authority”), has filed a memorandum seeking costs in respect of the Judgment and also in respect of an earlier decision in which Heath J dismissed Mr Tucker’s application for an order permitting him to carry out real estate work pending the determination of his appeal.4   Mr Tucker elected not to respond to the Authority’s costs memorandum.

[4]      The Authority seeks an award of costs for both the interlocutory application and the substantive appeal.   The Authority seeks costs for a total time allocation

(on a 2B scale basis) of 7.85 days, calculated as follows:

Item	Description	Allocation
53	Commencement of response to appeal	0.5
10	Preparation for first case management conference	0.4
11	Filing memorandum for first mention hearing	0.4
23	Filing opposition to interlocutory application	0.6
24	Preparation    of   written    submissions     (for   the interlocutory application)	1.5

1      Tucker v Real Estate Agents Authority [2017] NZHC 1894.

2      Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 301) v Tucker [2016] NZREADT 65.

3      Complaints Assessment Committees 301 and 403 v Tucker [2017] NZREADT 4.

4      Tucker v Real Estate Agents Authority [2017] NZHC 54.

26	Appearance at hearing of defended application	0.25
56	Preparation of written submissions	3
57	Appearance at hearing	1
29	Sealing of costs order	0.2
Total	7.85

[5]      The Authority was the successful party in respect of both the interlocutory application and the appeal.   There is no reason why costs should not follow the event, in accordance with the usual costs principles.  I have reviewed the Authority’s costs breakdown and am satisfied that each of the items claimed is appropriate.  The appropriate costs award is accordingly $17,505.50 (7.85 days at the daily recovery rate of $2,230, as set out in Schedule 2 of the High Court Rules).

[6]      The Authority also seeks payment of a disbursement of $50.00, for sealing the costs order.  I am also satisfied that such a disbursement is appropriate.

Result

[7]      I order that the appellant pay costs to the respondent in the total sum of

$17,555.50.

Katz J