Z v Z

[2015] NZHC 3183

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE PARTIES. INSPECTION OF COURT FILE PROHIBITED WITHOUT LEAVE OF A JUDGE.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-1520 [2015] NZHC 3183

BETWEEN

Z

Applicant

AND

Z Respondent

Hearing:	(on the papers)
Appearances:	D McLellan QC and J S Cooper for the Applicant Respondent in person
Judgment:	14 December 2015

JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J (Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 December 2015 at 3:00 p.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Parties / Solicitors / Counsel:

Mr D McLellan QC, Barrister, Auckland
Mr G Horton (Applicant’s solicitor), Harmos Horton Lusk, Solicitors, Auckland

The respondent

Z v Z [2015] NZHC 3183 [14 December 2015]

[1]      The applicant seeks costs following the substantive judgment.1

[2]      Any memorandum for the respondent in opposition to the costs application was required to be filed by 27 November 2015.  No memorandum in opposition has been filed to date and it is appropriate to deliver judgment.

[3]      The substantive judgment dealt with an interlocutory application by the respondent for rescission and variation of orders made on 22 March 2012.   The applicant was in all material respects successful in his opposition to this application. There was a variation to the order made in March 2012, but that was a variation made on the initiative of the applicant.  The applicant made a cross-application for orders that affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent in support of the rescission application  be  removed  from  the  Court  file  and  some  of  the  content  of  other affidavits be ruled inadmissible.   The applicant was also successful on that application.

[4]      The  applicant  seeks  costs  on  a  category  2B  basis  in  relation  to  the respondent’s application for rescission, and increased costs on the application to remove affidavits from the file and strike out other evidence.   Seven of the nine affidavits filed in support of the respondent’s application were ruled inadmissible in their entirety on one or more of a number of grounds, and parts of the remaining two affidavits were ruled inadmissible.

[5]      Given  the  content  of  the  affidavits,  and  for  reasons  recorded  in  the substantive judgment, I am satisfied that increased costs are justified.

[6]      Some  of  the  costs  items,  set  out  in  the  schedule  to  the  applicant’s memorandum, relate to both applications because, by their nature, both matters were dealt with together.  For this reason the applicant proposes an uplift of 25% for the combined items.   I am satisfied that that is a reasonable and practical way to deal

with the matter.

1      Z v Z [2015] NZHC 2674.

[7]      There  is  an  order  that  the  respondent  pay  costs  (which  sum  includes

disbursements) to the applicant in a sum of $11,518.95.

Woodhouse J