ALLAN V AIW HOLDINGS & INVESTMENTS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2007-404-6272
The court concluded the respondent had an arguable case to maintain the caveat on the material before it; reasonableness of bringing and resisting the application could be assessed immediately; therefore costs follow the event and the unsuccessful applicant must pay costs on a 2B basis plus disbursements as fixed by...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-9cf63ab3_5021_4985_aa05_3ae32be1d064.pdf
- Parties
- Applicant: Alice-Margaret Allan; Respondent: AIW Holdings & Investments Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 24 April 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Application Under Section 143 of the Land Transfer Act to Remove a Caveat / Costs Determination After Dismissal of the Application
- Outcome
- Application to remove caveat dismissed; respondent awarded costs
- Legal Topics
- Caveat Removal, Costs Follow Event, Section 143 LTA, Disbursements, 2 B Costs Scale
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alice-Margaret Allan
Applicant
AIW Holdings & Investments Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 143 of the Land Transfer Act to Remove a Caveat / Costs Determination After Dismissal of the Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether costs should be awarded to the respondent
- 2 Whether costs should be reserved to follow any substantive proceeding
- 3 Appropriate scale and timing for awarding costs
Ratio Decidendi
The court concluded the respondent had an arguable case to maintain the caveat on the material before it; reasonableness of bringing and resisting the application could be assessed immediately; therefore costs follow the event and the unsuccessful applicant must pay costs on a 2B basis plus disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
Court Disposition
Application to remove caveat dismissed; respondent awarded costs
Orders
- Applicant to pay respondent costs on a 2B basis
- Applicant to pay disbursements as fixed by the Registrar
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
ALLAN V AIW HOLDINGS & INVESTMENTS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2007-404-6272 24 April 2008IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2007-404-6272IN THE MATTER OF Section 143 of the Land Transfer Act BETWEEN ALICE-MARGARET ALLAN Applicant AND AIW HOLDINGS & INVESTMENTS LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 17 April 2008 Appearances: Mr D W Grove for Applicant Mr D B Hickson for Respondent Judgment: 24 April 2008 at 9 a.mJUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE DOOGUE [on Costs]This judgment was delivered by me on24.04.08 at 9 a.m., pursuant to Rule 540(4) of the High Court Rules. Registrar/Deputy Registrar DateCounsel:D W Grove, P O Box 130, Auckland Castle Brown, P O Box 9670, Auckland[1] I gave a judgment in this matter 11 March 2008 and then subsequently formally dismissed the application for order that the caveat be removed. The respondent now seeks costs. That is opposed by the applicant whose counsel, Mr D Grove, says that the usual rule is that costs should be reserved and follow the substantive proceeding. I was not aware that there was a 'usual rule' to that effect. Notwithstanding whether there is such a rule, in the circumstances of this case, bearing in mind that the issue of costs is always discretionary, I consider I have sufficient information before me to make a decision on the matter of costs relating to the application to remove caveat. The application has been dismissed and in the usual way costs should follow the event. My conclusion was that it could not be said that the respondent did not have an arguable case for maintenance of the caveat. That conclusion was reached in the light of the material available to the parties in the proceeding and which they placed before the Court. The reasonableness or otherwise of bringing the proceedings and resisting them can be determined now and does not need to wait for the outcome of any substantive proceedings. That being so, my conclusion is that the unsuccessful party should pay costs on a 2B basis together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar to the respondent. _____________ J.P. Doogue Associate Judge