Wilton v Logan

[2017] NZHC 1237

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-2747 [2017] NZHC 1237

IN THE MATTER OF	The District Courts Act 1947
BETWEEN	DIANNE KATHERINE WILTON Applicant
AND	TONY GRANT LOGAN Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	P J Stevenson for the Applicant Respondent in person
Judgment:	8 June 2017

COSTS JUDGMENT OF MUIR J

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday 8 June 2017 at 11.00 am

Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors/Counsel:
P J Stevenson, Barrister, Auckland

Copy to:

The Respondent

WILTON v LOGAN [2017] NZHC 1237 [8 June 2017]

[1]      The applicant applies for costs in the context of a settlement reached in associated proceedings (CIV-2016-404-2206) whereby it was agreed:

(a)       that  the  certificate  of  judgment  issued  by  the  District  Court  and

challenged by the present proceedings be “vacated”; and

(b)the   charging   orders   challenged   in   the   present   proceedings   be discharged.

[2]      No submissions have been received from the respondent.

[3]      When a proceeding is discontinued the costs are presumed to lie with the applicant.1    That does not, however, apply where the parties have settled.  In those circumstances the usual rules as to the fixing of costs apply.   This requires some determination of the parties’ relevant successes.

[4]      In the present case the agreement to vacate the certificate of judgment and discharge  the  charging  order  mean  that  a  reliable  assessment  of  the  merits  is possible. They lay in the applicant’s favour.

[5]      On that basis I consider a costs award in favour of the applicant appropriate. I limit that, however, to the following steps:

(a)       Filing application and supporting affidavits –  2      days

(b)      Preparation for first case management conference –             0.4    days

2.4    days

[6]      I exclude the applicant’s claim for “obtaining judgment without appearance”.

No judgment was given in its favour.

[7]      In  the  result,  I  award  costs  in  favour  of  the  applicant  and  against  the

respondent in the amount of $5,352.00.2

Muir J