Wright v Wright

[2018] NZHC 367

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2016-404-1838

[2018] NZHC 367

IN THE MATTER

of the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

IN THE MATTER

of a decision by the Disputes Tribunal dated March 25, 2010

BETWEEN

STUART LINDSEY WRIGHT

Applicant

AND

DAVID STEVEN WRIGHT

First Respondent

AND

THE REGISTRAR DISPUTES TRIBUNAL AUCKLAND

Second Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

MB Meyrick for Applicant

MJ Robinson for First Respondent
The Second Respondent abides the decision of the Court

Judgment:

9 March 2018

JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 March 2018 at 10.00 am Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

WRIGHT v WRIGHT [2018] NZHC 367 [9 March 2018]

[1]    On 8 December 2017, I delivered a judgment in this proceeding dismissing the applicant's application for judicial review of a decision of the Disputes Tribunal, between the applicant and the first respondent, given on 25 March 2010. One of the grounds for dismissing the application was that the applicant had delayed the bringing of the proceeding for in excess of six years. I considered the delay to be an abuse of the Court's process.

[2]    In giving judgment I ruled that the first respondent was entitled to costs assessed on a Category 2B basis. I directed the filing of memoranda.

[3]    A  costs  memorandum  on  behalf  of  the  first  respondent  was  filed  on   18 December 2017 and served that day. The applicant had until 19 January 2018 to file and serve any costs memorandum in response but has taken no steps in that regard. I note that the applicant has filed a Notice of Appeal against the judgment.

[4]    In his memorandum of 18 December 2017 on behalf of the first respondent, Mr Robinson claimed costs and disbursements totalling $11,413, in accordance with the Schedule for Category 2B proceedings. The first respondent is entitled to an order in that amount.

[5]    Mr Robinson also claims costs for the memorandum of 18 December 2017 and in respect of a further memorandum dated 9 February 2018 which appears merely to repeat the first respondent's claim that costs ought to be awarded as sought because the applicant had taken no steps.

[6]    I see no basis for allowing an award of costs for the February 2018 memorandum; there was no need to file it. Mr Robinson claims that costs on the first memorandum should be paid because the applicant was given an opportunity to agree informally that costs should be paid in accordance with a draft order which the first respondent provided. However, the first respondent did not seek such costs when filing and serving his memorandum of 18 December 2017 and I see no reason to depart from the usual principle that costs on a costs memorandum are not sought or paid.

[7]    Accordingly, I direct that the applicant shall pay the first respondent costs and disbursements in the sum of $11,413.

...........................................

Toogood J