CKL SURVEYS LIMITED V HUNUA PROPERTIES LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-2587

CKL SURVEYS LIMITED V HUNUA PROPERTIES LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-2587 16 June 2010IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2010-404-2587IN THE MATTER OF the Companies Act 1993 BETWEEN CKL SURVEYS LIMITED Plaintiff AND HUNUA PROPERTIES LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 16 June 2010 Appearances: Mr Hayes for plaintiff Mr M S McDonald (director of defendant) Judgment: 16 June 2010ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE DOOGUE [on Costs]Solicitors:Maude Miller, P O Box 213, Wellington – by email: diannel@mmiller.co.nz Copy: Cook Morris Quinn – by email: andrew.hayes@cmqlaw.co.nzMrMcDonald c/o Chatfield & co, Level 10, Newcall Tower, 44 Khyber Pass Road, Auckland[1] The plaintiff will be withdrawing this proceeding. The amount claimed in the statement of claim has been paid however there is a dispute as to costs. Mr Hayes says that the plaintiff seeks costs on a 2B basis on the ground that the plaintiff has been successful. Mr McDonald for the defendant has filed a memorandum; essentially he says that he did not understand that there would be additional costs. Mr McDonald says that the company was advised of the costs late in the piece. He says that the company is paying the debt in any event even though it does not owe the amount claimed. [2] Irrespective of whether the defendant considers that it was not liable for the debt, the plaintiff has obtained in the proceedings what it set out to, and it is to be regarded as the successful party. The usual rule is that costs follow the event so that would mean that the plaintiff should receive costs. There is no statutory requirements or Rules requirement that the intention to seek costs should hbe notified in the pleading. The Rules contain detailed provisions governing Court costs and that is a public document which can be seen by litigants. I accept though for someone in Mr McDonald's position he might not know what the Court's usual practice is when applying the Rules. But that does not to me, amount to a weighty reason why the usual Rule as to costs should not apply. As to the late advice, that is really connected with the point that the defendant did not appreciate that costs orders could be made. The fact was that the plaintiff had to go to Court to get payment and I do not consider that is a factor which offsets or defeats the right to costs. For those reasons I consider that the plaintiff's application for costs is well founded and I make an order directing costs on a 2B basis together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. _____________ J.P. Doogue Associate Judge