SHARMA V WATI HC AK CIV-2006-404-2976
Because the Deputy Registrar improperly sealed an order that included reserved costs and because the applicant's procedure was misconceived as there had been no taxation by the Registrar, the appropriate disposition is that costs lie where they fall and there will be no order for costs.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-d98a1151_2f5e_4ba3_ab8a_359aab9f403d.pdf
- Parties
- Applicant: Deo Datt Sharma; Respondent: Nirmala Wati
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 30 October 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Review of Costs by Deputy Registrar / Judgment on Papers
- Outcome
- Application dismissed; costs lie where they fall; no order for costs.
- Legal Topics
- Review of Taxation of Costs by Registrar/deputy Registrar, Sealing of Orders, Costs Follow/lie Where They Fall
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Deo Datt Sharma
Applicant
Nirmala Wati
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Costs by Deputy Registrar / Judgment on Papers
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Deputy Registrar improperly sealed an order containing reserved costs
- 2 Whether the applicant's procedure for review was valid given there had been no taxation by the Registrar
- 3 What order as to costs is appropriate where the procedure is misconceived and the Registrar did not tax costs
Ratio Decidendi
Because the Deputy Registrar improperly sealed an order that included reserved costs and because the applicant's procedure was misconceived as there had been no taxation by the Registrar, the appropriate disposition is that costs lie where they fall and there will be no order for costs.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed; costs lie where they fall; no order for costs.
Orders
- Costs lie where they fall.
- No order for costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
SHARMA V WATI HC AK CIV-2006-404-2976 30 October 2008IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2006-404-2976IN THE MATTER OF an application for review of costs by Deputy Registrar in CIV-2006-404-2976 BETWEEN DEO DATT SHARMA Applicant AND NIRMALA WATI Respondent Hearing: [Dealt with on the papers] Judgment: 30 October 2008 at 3:00 pmJUDGMENT OF JOHN HANSEN J [COSTS]This judgment was delivered by me on 30 October 2008 at 3:00 pm pursuant to Rule 540(4) of the High Court Rules .. Registrar/Deputy Registrar .. DateDD Sharma, 1/97 McLeod Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland Witten-Hannah Howard, 187 Hurstmere Road, Takapuna, Auckland[1] On 14 October 2008 I issued a reserved decision on the applicant's notice seeking to review a taxation of costs by the Deputy Registrar. [2] What occurred is that the Deputy Registrar sealed an order including costs that had been reserved but not the subject of any further orders of the Court. The Deputy Registrar should not have done so. [3] However, I also found that the procedure adopted by the applicant was misconceived in that there had not been a taxation of costs by the Registrar. [4] In those circumstances, I consider the appropriate order is that costs should lie where they fall. Accordingly there will be no order for costs.. John Hansen J