BANK OF NEW ZEALAND V CRISFORD TRUSTEE LIMITED (1689149) (STRUCK OFF) HC AK CIV-2012-404-6135

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND V CRISFORD TRUSTEE LIMITED (1689149) (STRUCK OFF) HC AK CIV- 2012-404-6135 [11 December 2012]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYCIV-2012-404-6135[2012] NZHC 3330UNDER s 329 of the Companies Act 1993BETWEEN BANK OF NEW ZEALANDApplicantAND CRISFORD TRUSTEE LIMITED(1689149) (STRUCK OFF)RespondentHearing: 1 November 2012Appearances: Mr Barker for ApplicantMr C R Pidgeon QC for RespondentsJudgment: 11 December 2012JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE DOOGUE[Judgment Two ]This judgment was delivered by me on11.12.12 at 4.30 pm, pursuant toRule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarDateCounsel:Buddle Findlay, P O Box 2694, Wellington –scott.barker@buddlefindlay.comC R Pidgeon QC, P O Box 105294, Auckland – colpidge@xtra.co.nz[1] As part of the judgment that I gave ordering the restoration of the company to the Register, I made orders for costs against Mr and Mrs Crisford. In fact, as it has been pointed out to me by Mr C R Pidgeon QC in his memorandum dated 26 November 2012, Mrs Crisford did not take any part in the proceedings. Mr Crisford alone filed and served the notice of opposition and instructed counsel to appear on the application.[2] The order that I made overlooked the fact that Mrs K S Crisford was not an opposing party. An order for costs ought not to have been made against her. I do not consider that proposition can be overcome by submitting, as Mr Barker does, that there are essentially reasons connected with the merits of the case why Mrs Crisford should be made to pay costs on this application.[3] Mr Barker has submitted that it is now too late to amend my judgment. I do not agree. The correct position is set out in the judgment of Wylie J dated 15 March 2011 in Willcocks v Teat.1 In his judgment Wylie J concluded that the Court has jurisdiction to correct an accidental slip or omission in a judgment, notwithstanding that the judgment has been sealed.2 I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case to correct an accidental slip or omission. Mr Pidgeon QC has stated in his memorandum that counsel for the applicant did not seek a costs order against Mrs Crisford and Mr Barker has not sought to contradict him.[4] My earlier judgment requires correction and is corrected by changing all references in paragraph 16 from Mr and Mrs Crisford to Mr Crisford. The final paragraph of the judgment is to be altered so that the last sentence reads:I see no reason why the BNZ as the successful party should not have costs and I direct that Mr Crisford is to pay costs on a 2B basis and also to pay to the BNZ the reasonable disbursements of the present litigation as certified by the Registrar.1 Willcocks v Teat CIV-2008-463-000784, 15 March 2011.2 Ibid at [23]._____________J.P. DoogueAssociate Judge