SHEPHARD & ANOR v MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON & ORS [2014] NZHC 1160

SHEPHARD & ANOR v MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON & ORS [2014] NZHC 1160

The Registrar was correct to require payment from the second defendants because a summary judgment application is an interlocutory application captured by the High Court Fees Regulations 2013 and Regulation 9 requires the applicant to pay the scheduling and estimated hearing fees; item 20 applies to this application, so the second defendants must pay the required fee.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 1160
Parties
Plaintiff: Iain Bruce Shephard; Plaintiff: Christine Margaret Dunphy; First Defendant: Malcolm Edward Rabson; Second Defendants: Malcolm Edward Rabson and Richard John Creser; Third Defendant: Wayne Seymour Chapman
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
28 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Summary Judgment Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Application for Summary Judgment; Fee Dispute Prior to Scheduled Hearing
Outcome
Registrar's requirement upheld: second defendants must pay the estimated hearing fee under Regulation 9 of the High Court Fees Regulations 2013.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, High Court Fees Regulations 2013, Interlocutory Applications, Assignment of Claims, Trust Assets
Civil Procedure Insolvency Trusts Fees and Costs Summary Judgment High Court Fees Regulations 2013 Interlocutory Applications Assignment of Claims +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iain Bruce Shephard

Plaintiff

Christine Margaret Dunphy

Plaintiff

Malcolm Edward Rabson

First Defendant

Malcolm Edward Rabson and Richard John Creser

Second Defendants

Wayne Seymour Chapman

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Summary Judgment Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Application for Summary Judgment; Fee Dispute Prior to Scheduled Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an applicant for an interlocutory application must pay the scheduling and estimated hearing fees under Regulation 9 of the High Court Fees Regulations 2013
  2. 2 Whether the second defendants, who filed the summary judgment application but consider themselves involuntary parties, are required to pay the fees
  3. 3 Which fee item (items 18-20) captures the second defendants' application for summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The Registrar was correct to require payment from the second defendants because a summary judgment application is an interlocutory application captured by the High Court Fees Regulations 2013 and Regulation 9 requires the applicant to pay the scheduling and estimated hearing fees; item 20 applies to this application, so the second defendants must pay the required fee.

Court Disposition

Registrar's requirement upheld: second defendants must pay the estimated hearing fee under Regulation 9 of the High Court Fees Regulations 2013.

Orders

  • Second defendants must pay the estimated hearing fee required under Regulation 9 for their interlocutory summary judgment application.
  • If the second defendants do not pay the prescribed fee the plaintiffs are entitled to take the next procedural step.