TURNER v IKEDA [2020] NZHC 435
The respondent, as the successful party, is entitled to costs on a category 2B basis; the appellant did not succeed to any material degree so no reduction is justified; although the appellant's submissions were filed late this did not materially increase the overall costs and therefore no uplift is awarded.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] NZHC 435
- Parties
- Appellant: Jacqueline Anne Veronica Turner; Respondent: Kazufumi Ikeda
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 9 March 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under the Harassment Act 1997 / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Appeal
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to respondent on a category 2B basis; no uplift awarded; disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar; Registrar may disburse security for costs to respondent's counsel.
- Legal Topics
- Harassment Act 1997, Appeal, Costs Awards, Timetable Compliance
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jacqueline Anne Veronica Turner
Appellant
Kazufumi Ikeda
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Harassment Act 1997 / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the successful respondent is entitled to costs
- 2 Whether the appellant succeeded to a degree warranting reduction of costs
- 3 Whether an uplift to costs is justified for late compliance with timetable directions
Ratio Decidendi
The respondent, as the successful party, is entitled to costs on a category 2B basis; the appellant did not succeed to any material degree so no reduction is justified; although the appellant's submissions were filed late this did not materially increase the overall costs and therefore no uplift is awarded.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to respondent on a category 2B basis; no uplift awarded; disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar; Registrar may disburse security for costs to respondent's counsel.
Orders
- Award costs to respondent on a category 2B basis
- No uplift of 20% granted for late filing
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
TURNER v IKEDA [2020] NZHC 435 [9 March 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2019-404-001457[2020] NZHC 435UNDER the Harassment Act 1997IN THE MATTER of an appeal from a decision of the DistrictCourtBETWEEN JACQUELINE ANNE VERONICATURNERAppellantAND KAZUFUMI IKEDARespondentHearing: On the papersCounsel: TJP Bowler for AppellantZ Chen / J Leenoh for RespondentJudgment: 9 March 2020COSTS JUDGMENT OF LANG JThis judgment was delivered by me on 9 March 2020 at 3.30 pm,pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarDate .Solicitors:Neilsons Lawyers, AucklandK3 Legal Ltd, Auckland.[1] On 13 February 2020, I delivered a judgment in which I dismissed an appealby the appellant, Ms Turner, against the dismissal of her claim under the HarassmentAct 1997.1 I am now required to fix costs in relation to the appeal.[2] The respondent was plainly the successful party and is entitled to an award ofcosts. I do not consider the appellant succeeded to any material degree in the appealand no reduction in costs is justified.[3] The respondent, Mr Ikeda, has now provided evidence that he incurred andpaid legal costs amounting to $10,923.97. On that basis counsel for the respondentaccepts an award of costs on a category 2B basis is appropriate. He seeks an uplift of20 per cent, however, to reflect the fact that the appellant failed to comply with thetimetable directions made by consent in relation to the filing and service ofsubmissions. He says this contributed unnecessarily to the time and expense of theproceeding.[4] The appellant's submissions were clearly filed late, and I accept this wouldhave placed counsel for the respondent under considerable time pressure to preparesubmissions in response. I do not consider, however, that this is likely to have addedmaterially, if at all, to the overall cost of the proceeding. I therefore do not considerany uplift is justified.[5] I make an award of costs in favour of the respondent on a category 2B basistogether with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.[6] The Registrar may now disburse the funds held by way of security for costs tocounsel for the respondent.________________________Lang J1 Turner v Ikeda [2020] NZHC 149.