MORTON-JONES v THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY [2016] NZHC 2593

MORTON-JONES v THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY [2016] NZHC 2593 [1 November 2016]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYCIV-2015-404-1679[2016] NZHC 2593UNDER the Real Estate Agents Act 2008IN THE MATTER of an appeal against a decision of the RealEstate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal inREADT 31/14BETWEEN ALAN MORTON-JONESAppellantAND THE REAL ESTATE AGENTSAUTHORITYRespondentCont Hearing: On the papersAppearances: P Kennelly for the Appellant in CIV-2015-404-1679 andRespondent in CIV-2015-404-2564C Paterson and N Copeland for the Respondent in CIV-2015-404-1679 and Appellant in CIV-2015-404-2564Judgment: 1 November 2016JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J (COSTS)This judgment was delivered by me on 1 November 2016 at 3:00 p.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors: Mr P Kennelly, Kennelly Law, Solicitors, Orewa Mr C Paterson and Mr N Copeland, Meredith Connell, Solicitors, AucklandCont CIV-2015-404-2564UNDER the Real Estate Agents Act 2008IN THE MATTER of an appeal against a decision of the New Zealand Real Estate Agents Disciplinary TribunalBETWEEN COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE 20005 OF THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITYAppellantAND ALAN MORTON-JONESRespondent[1] The Complaints Assessment Committee 20005, as respondent in Mr Morton-Jones' appeal against liability, in CIV-2015-404-1679, and as appellant against the decision on penalty in CIV-2015-404-2564, sought costs against Mr Morton-Jones. Mr Morton-Jones has taken issue with the Committee's claims in certain respects.Appeal against liability – CIV-2015-404-1679[2] The Committee's claim for costs on the liability appeal by Mr Morton-Jones was for a sum of $11,261.50, plus disbursements.[3] The itemised claim by the Committee is in accordance with schedule 3 of the High Court Rules and consistent with the record. Mr Morton-Jones did not raise anyspecific objection, but rather a blanket objection that "there is no evidence as to the actual costs incurred".[4] The invoice of the solicitors for the Committee, with itemisation, has been produced. The total invoiced, for both appeals, was $39,499. Counsel advised that, of this, the actual costs charged for the penalty appeal were $13,166. The actual costs for the liability appeal were therefore approximately $26,000.[5] The schedule costs sought by the Committee for the liability appeal are significantly less than actual costs. On the liability appeal the Committee, as respondent, is entitled to the schedule sum sought of $11,261.50.Appeal against penalty – CIV-2015-404-2564[6] In respect of the penalty appeal, the Committee sought a sum of $12,599.50as scale costs. There were two principal objections for Mr Morton-Jones. One wasthat, because the hearing on the penalty appeal took approximately one-quarter of thehearing time, that should be reflected in the claim. The second was that the amountsought was not justified in the absence of evidence of actual costs.[7] On the first point the amount claimed by the Committee for the hearing of the penalty appeal was in fact one-quarter of the schedule amount for the hearing. Three-quarters of the schedule amount had been claimed for the hearing on theliability appeal. The actual costs were noted above and are more than the scale costs sought.[8] The Committee, as appellant in CIV-2015-404-2564, is entitled to scale costs in the sum sought of $12,599.50.Disbursements[9] The original sum sought by the Committee for disbursements was $1,517.32.To avoid "any further dispute" this claim was reduced to $561.60, being the filingfee of $540 and photocopying charges of $21.60. Those disbursements areapproved.Result[10] In CIV-2015-404-1679, the respondent is entitled to costs in a sum of $11,261.50.[11] In CIV-2015-404-2564, the appellant is entitled to costs in a sum of $12,599.50 and disbursements of $561.60.______________________________Woodhouse J