HOUSTON-QUAY v HENSON (AKA IAN HENSON) [2019] NZHC 1197

HOUSTON-QUAY v HENSON (AKA IAN HENSON) [2019] NZHC 1197 [29 May 2019]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDHAMILTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAKIRIKIRIROA ROHECIV-2014-419-93[2019] NZHC 1197BETWEEN AMANDA JANE HOUSTON-QUAYApplicantAND JULIAN DOYLE HENSON (AKA IANHENSON)RespondentHearing: On the papersAppearances K F Shaw for ApplicantD Hayes for RespondentJudgment: 29 May 2019JUDGMENT OF PAUL DAVISON J[Re: Costs]This judgment was delivered by me on 29 May 2019 at 3:00 pmPursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors:Hunwick Law Limited, HamiltonHarkness Henry, Hamilton[1] The applicant, Amanda Houston-Quay, succeeded in an appeal from ajudgment of the District Court at Hamilton delivered on 11 February 2014. Sheobtained an award of costs on the $20,000 sum that she successfully sued therespondent for. However, the District Court Judge declined to award her costs. Onappeal Brewer J held that the applicant was entitled to costs on her claim for $20,000and allowed her appeal. In other respects the applicant's appeal failed. Brewer Jawarded the applicant costs on a 2B basis in relation to her successful appeal. HisHonour said:1I award Ms Houston-Quay costs on a 2B basis in relation to her successfulappeal against the refusal to allow costs. Due to the trivial nature of the othermatters, and the mixed success of the appeals thereon, I decline to award costson those matters. The Registrar will calculate costs as awarded if the partiescannot agree them.[2] By interlocutory application dated 16 December 2014 the respondent, MrHenson, applied for leave to appeal from the judgment of Brewer J. The applicationwas not prosecuted with any sense of urgency and on 20 March 2019 I made an orderdirecting that the respondent's application for leave to appeal be set down for hearingon 2 May 2019. I made a timetable direction for the filing of submissions by theapplicant and respondent.[3] The respondent subsequently elected not to pursue the application for leave toappeal and the parties have now filed memoranda regarding the applicant's entitlementto costs on her successful appeal and pursuant to the judgment of Brewer J.[4] The applicant seeks costs totalling $12,488.01 which includes interest to 22March 2019. The breakdown of the applicant's costs calculation include attendancesfor commencement of appeal, a memorandum prepared for a mentions hearing,preparation of case on appeal, preparation of submissions and the Court appearance atthe hearing of the appeal for which a quarter day is claimed. Disbursements totalling$1,443.51 are also claimed.[5] The respondent refers to Brewer J's comment that he declined to award costson the "other matters" where the applicant had mixed success as regards her appeals.1 Houston-Quay v Henson [2014] NZHC 2899 at [30].The respondent submits that only costs on the successful part of the appeal have beenawarded and so, as the applicant only succeeded on one part of her appeal, full costswould not be appropriate and should not be awarded.[6] For the respondent Mr Hayes submits that 60 per cent of the scale costs shouldbe awarded to the applicant to "reflect the result of the appeal". Mr Hayes submitsthat the applicant's claim for three days' preparation for the appeal ought to be reducedas, in his submission, one day to prepare the submissions would have been sufficient.[7] While the applicant succeeded on the matter which was the principal groundof her appeal, she had mixed success on the other matters under appeal. I agree withMr Hayes that three days' preparation of submissions is a generous use of time for amatter such as this appeal was having regard to the issues arising.[8] Accordingly I shall allow 1.5 days for preparation of submissions for theappeal. I accordingly allow the applicant costs on a 2B basis of $8,059.50 togetherwith disbursements of $1,443.51._____________Paul Davison J