AUCKLAND DISTRICT LAW SOCIETY V NEUTZE HC AK CIV 2005-404-006154
The Court awarded costs to the Applicant on the High Court scale band 2B because the matter fell within that band, the Respondent offered no satisfactory basis to defer costs until appeal, and the Applicant undertook not to enforce the costs award until the appeal is disposed of; the Court refused certification for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-fd34529b_a0a3_42d5_8a51_724ba2cd2130.pdf
- Parties
- Applicant: Auckland District Law Society; Respondent: Peter Stephen Neutze
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 31 March 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Disciplinary / Costs Application
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to Applicant on High Court scale band 2B; no certificate for second counsel; Applicant undertook not to enforce award until appeal is disposed of.
- Legal Topics
- Costs Assessment, Stay Pending Appeal, Suspension From Practice
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Auckland District Law Society
Applicant
Peter Stephen Neutze
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Disciplinary / Costs Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to award costs to the Applicant
- 2 Appropriate costs band (2B)
- 3 Whether to defer costs pending the Respondent's appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The Court awarded costs to the Applicant on the High Court scale band 2B because the matter fell within that band, the Respondent offered no satisfactory basis to defer costs until appeal, and the Applicant undertook not to enforce the costs award until the appeal is disposed of; the Court refused certification for second counsel.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to Applicant on High Court scale band 2B; no certificate for second counsel; Applicant undertook not to enforce award until appeal is disposed of.
Orders
- Costs and disbursements awarded to Auckland District Law Society on band 2B totalling $42,847.40
- No certification for second counsel
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
AUCKLAND DISTRICT LAW SOCIETY V NEUTZE HC AK CIV 2005-404-006154 31 March 2006IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2005-404-006154BETWEEN AUCKLAND DISTRICT LAW SOCIETY Applicant AND PETER STEPHEN NEUTZE Respondent Court: John Hansen J Chisholm J Gendall J Judgment: 31 March 2006JUDGMENT OF THE COURT[1] The Applicant has filed a memorandum seeking costs on a 2B basis. [2] Despite invitations from the Court the Respondent has failed to file a memorandum dealing with the incidence and quantum of costs. Instead he has sought various stays and argues that the question of costs should await the outcome of his appeal. He continues to maintain that the effect of the judgment is to remove him from the profession (see the letter attached to his memorandum of 26 March 2006). In fact, he has only been suspended until such time as he can demonstrate he is a fit and proper person to recommence practise of the law. [3] The Applicant has undertaken not to make any effort to enforce a costs award in its favour until the appeal has been disposed of. [4] We can see no reason why we should not deal with the question of costs. We are also satisfied that the members of the Applicant should not bear all of the costs ofbringing these proceedings, which were occasioned by the actions of the Respondent. [5] The Applicant's actual costs, including disbursements, are $70,354.73. Responsibly the Applicant seeks costs on a 2B basis which, including disbursements, total $42,847.40. [6] In our view this matter is properly put within band 2B and we award costs and disbursements to the Applicant on that basis, but we would not certify it for second counsel.