IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE
CIV-2018-419-278
[2020] NZHC 253
BETWEEN RUSSELL STUART WARD
Plaintiff
AND
ANGUS JAMES LOCHORE
Defendant
Hearing: On the papers Judgment:
24 February 2020
JUDGMENT OF KATZ J
[Application to stay costs award pending appeal]
This judgment was delivered by me on 24 February 2020 at 4:30pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Solicitors: Bryce Bluett, Hamilton Counsel: W C Pyke, Barrister, Auckland Copy to: R S Ward (Plaintiff)
WARD v LOCHORE [2020] NZHC 253 [24 February 2020]
[1] In a judgment delivered on 12 June 2019 I struck out proceedings brought by Mr Ward against Mr Lochore following the termination of Mr Ward’s lease of commercial premises.1 I made an award of costs and disbursements in favour of Mr Lochore, as the successful party, on a 2B scale basis.
[2] Mr Ward subsequently applied to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time to appeal the costs award against him.2 He also filed an application in this Court, seeking to stay the costs award, pending determination of his proposed appeal.
[3] By judgment dated 24 February 2020, the Court declined to grant an extension of time to appeal, on the basis that Mr Ward’s appeal lacked merit and faced insurmountable barriers.3
[4] It necessarily follows that the stay application filed in this Court is now moot. It is accordingly dismissed. Mr Lochore is entitled to costs in respect of the stay application on a 2B scale basis.
Katz J
1 Ward v Lochore [2019] NZHC 1314.
2 Pursuant to r 29A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.
- AGLC
- Ward v Lochore [2020] NZHC 253
- Case
- [2020] NZHC 253
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court needed to address involved Ward's application to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time to appeal the costs award against him. Ward also sought to stay the costs award pending the determination of his proposed appeal. The Court of Appeal had already declined to grant an extension of time to appeal, finding that Ward's appeal lacked merit and faced insurmountable barriers. This led to the stay application in the High Court becoming moot.
Katz J dismissed Ward's application to stay the costs award, affirming that Lochore was entitled to costs in respect of the stay application on a 2B scale basis. The court held that since the appeal lacked merit and faced insurmountable barriers, there was no need to stay the costs award. Therefore, the stay application was dismissed, and Lochore was to receive costs associated with the stay application.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.