Wati v Sharma

[2020] NZHC 1847

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-236

[2020] NZHC 1847

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal from the Family Court

BETWEEN

NIRMALA WATI

Appellant

AND

DEO DATT SHARMA

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	R O Parmenter for the appellant Respondent in person
Date of judgment:	28 July 2020

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 28 July 2020 at 3.00pm.

Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………….. Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel:

R O Parmenter Barrister, Auckland

WATI v SHARMA [2020] NZHC 1847 [28 July 2020]

[1]                  My judgment of 2 July 2020 in Ms Wati’s favour took the preliminary views, as the successful party, she was entitled to 1B costs and disbursements for steps taken on the appeal, as the appeal was of a straightforward nature occupying a normal amount of time, excluding step 57 as I did not require to hear from Ms Wati’s counsel,

Ray Parmenter.1

[2]                  I calculated such costs from a five-day time allocation at a daily recovery rate of $1,590 to amount to $7,950 or such lesser sum as Ms Wati actually incurred (plus disbursements as allowed by the Registrar), but reserved costs if that was not accepted by the parties, or they could not otherwise agree.2

[3]                  Mr Parmenter proposes to reinstate step 57 as he was required to be present and had to refresh himself on the morning of the hearing. But the latter is preparation, and I did not require to hear from him. Some reduction is justified.

[4]                  Mr Parmenter also supplements my calculation by including time allocations for call memoranda and for sealing the judgment. I apprehend he is correct, taking costs to $9,222. Mr Parmenter seeks only costs of $9,000 on the appeal, plus $318 as costs on his costs memorandum. I accept his advice Ms Wati’s expenses exceed that sum.

[5]                  I understand the Registry in error initially sealed an order for costs sought by Mr Parmenter. As my judgment directed, the order should not have been sought or made except with Mr Sharma’s agreement. Be that as it may, that now has been undone. Mr Parmenter’s contribution to the incorrect sealing also should be met with some sanction, and I will not allow costs on the costs application.

[6]                  I therefore order Mr Sharma to pay Ms Wati costs in the amount of $9,000 (plus disbursements as allowed by the Registrar).

—Jagose J

1      Wati v Sharma [2020] NZHC 1545 at [11].

2 At [12].