ORMOND v PONGAROA LAND CO LIMITED [2018] NZHC 334
Because the applicant's application to prevent the caveat from lapsing was declined and no persuasive argument was advanced to depart from the court's preliminary view, the respondent was entitled to costs on a 2B basis and to recover $9,589.00 plus disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] NZHC 334
- Parties
- Applicant: Araleaj Ormond; Respondent: Pongaroa Land Co Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 7 March 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Caveat Application / Costs Stage
- Outcome
- Applicant's application declined; respondent entitled to costs
- Legal Topics
- Caveat Lapse, Costs on a 2 B Basis, Disbursements
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Araleaj Ormond
Applicant
Pongaroa Land Co Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Caveat Application / Costs Stage
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether applicant's caveat should not lapse
- 2 Entitlement to costs and quantum on a 2B basis
Ratio Decidendi
Because the applicant's application to prevent the caveat from lapsing was declined and no persuasive argument was advanced to depart from the court's preliminary view, the respondent was entitled to costs on a 2B basis and to recover $9,589.00 plus disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
Court Disposition
Applicant's application declined; respondent entitled to costs
Orders
- Respondent entitled to recover costs totalling $9,589.00 plus disbursements as fixed by the Registrar
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
ORMOND v PONGAROA LAND CO LIMITED [2018] NZHC 334 [7 March 2018]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDNAPIER REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAAHURIRI ROHECIV-2018-441-4[2018] NZHC 334IN THE MATTER of Caveat 10980209.1BETWEEN ARALEAJ ORMONDApplicantAND PONGAROA LAND CO LIMITEDRespondentJudgment: 7 March 2018COSTS JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE JOHNSTON[On the papers][1] In my judgment of 23 February 2018, I declined the applicant's application foran order that her caveat not lapse. I concluded by signalling that my preliminary viewwas that the respondent was entitled to its costs on a 2B basis, but invited counsel toconfer and settle costs if possible. I am informed that they have been unable to do so,and I now have memoranda from Mr O'Connor and Mr McCutcheon.[2] No argument is advanced to the effect that I should depart from my preliminaryview. Mr O'Connor has calculated the costs to which his client is entitled on a 2Bbasis, and those calculations are unchallenged.[3] Accordingly, I now order that the respondent is entitled to recover coststotalling $9,589.00 plus disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.Associate Judge JohnstonSolicitors:Peter McCutcheon, Auckland for applicantBramwell Bate, Hastings for respondent