EPSOM WOODS LTD v WAITAKERE FARMS LTD [2020] NZHC 3137
Respondent was entitled to costs but several claimed items were disallowed: preparation for hearing on an originating application (item 32) did not apply and 1.5 days for submissions on costs was excessive so reduced to 0.4 days; after reductions the appropriate 2B scale costs awarded were $13,741.50 and permitted...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] NZHC 3137
- Parties
- Applicant: Epsom Woods Limited; Respondent: Waitakere Farms Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 27 November 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Application Under Companies Act 1993 S 290 to Set Aside a Statutory Demand / Costs Stage Following Dismissal of Application (costs Judgment on the Papers)
- Outcome
- Respondent entitled to costs with reductions as set out in judgment.
- Legal Topics
- Statutory Demand, Setting Aside Statutory Demand, Costs Assessment, Disbursements, High Court Rules
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Epsom Woods Limited
Applicant
Waitakere Farms Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application Under Companies Act 1993 S 290 to Set Aside a Statutory Demand / Costs Stage Following Dismissal of Application (costs Judgment on the Papers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent is entitled to costs
- 2 Appropriate scale and quantum of costs to award
- 3 Whether specific claimed time/cost items and disbursements should be disallowed
Ratio Decidendi
Respondent was entitled to costs but several claimed items were disallowed: preparation for hearing on an originating application (item 32) did not apply and 1.5 days for submissions on costs was excessive so reduced to 0.4 days; after reductions the appropriate 2B scale costs awarded were $13,741.50 and permitted disbursements were $251.54, reflecting the respondent's failure to receive a timely response to its schedule of costs and the Court's assessment of reasonable items and time.
Court Disposition
Respondent entitled to costs with reductions as set out in judgment.
Orders
- Respondent awarded 2B costs of $13,741.50 payable by the applicant
- Respondent awarded disbursements of $251.54 payable by the applicant
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
EPSOM WOODS LTD v WAITAKERE FARMS LTD [2020] NZHC 3137 [27 November 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2020-404-522[2020] NZHC 3137IN THE MATTER of the Companies Act 1993, s 290, andsetting aside a statutory demandBETWEEN EPSOM WOODS LIMITEDApplicantAND WAITAKERE FARMS LIMITEDDefendantHearing: On the papersCounsel: D Hayes for the ApplicantAAH Low for the RespondentJudgment: 27 November 2020JUDGMENT OF GAULT J(Costs)This judgment was delivered by me on 27 November 2020 at 4:00 pmpursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors:Mr D Hayes, Barrister, New Zealand Commercial Law Corp Ltd, HamiltonMr M Hunwick (applicant's instructing solicitor), Hunwick Law Ltd, HamiltonMs AAH Low, Alexandra Low & Associates, Auckland[1] My judgment dated 3 September 2020 dismissed an application by EpsomWoods Ltd (EWL) to set aside a statutory demand issued by Waitakere Farms Ltd(WFL).1 In my judgment, I indicated that WFL is entitled to costs and invitedmemoranda if costs could not be agreed.[2] WFL seeks 2B scale costs of $21,150.50 plus disbursements of $645.04.2[3] EWL acknowledges that costs are payable but disputes a number of items.[4] I accept EWL's submission that some of the costs claimed should bedisallowed. Item 32 (preparation for hearing) does not apply to originatingapplications. I also do not allow 1.5 days for submissions on costs. While the Courthas power to award costs in relation to costs, they are unusual and the Court is reluctantto award them.3 Here the reason to award them is EWL's failure to respond to WFL'sschedule of costs claimed before the memorandum was filed. A response indicatingdisputed items ought to have resolved the matter. In any event, 1.5 days for a two pagecosts memorandum is excessive. I allow 0.4 days. The remaining items claimed areallowed, totalling $13,741.50 (a reduction of 3.1 days, totalling $7,409).[5] In relation to disbursements, I allow service of the second demand and thesealing fee.Result[6] The respondent is entitled to 2B costs of $13,741.50 plus disbursements of$251.54.________________________________Gault J1 Epsom Woods Ltd v Waitakere Farms Ltd [2020] NZHC 2283.2 WFL submitted that an uplift might have been warranted but did not seek an uplift.3 Jeffreys v Morgenstern [2013] NZHC 1361 at [40]; and Barry Park Investments Ltd v BodyCorporate No 95388 [2016] NZHC 1527 at [25].