CLEGG v HOUGHTON [2017] NZHC 2594
Given the straightforward nature of the application for vacant possession and the defendant's unmeritorious position and lack of submissions, the court exercised its discretion to award costs on the 2B scale rather than solicitor/client costs, awarding $7,996.50 to the plaintiffs.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] NZHC 2594
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Jillian Rae Clegg; Plaintiff: Thomas William Clegg; Defendant: Shynelle Marie Houghton
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 24 October 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Application Under Property Law Act 2007 Ss 339(1),(4) and 343 / Costs Reserved After Substantive Judgment; Costs Judgment Delivered
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to the plaintiffs on a 2B basis.
- Legal Topics
- Vacant Possession, Sale of Residential Property, Costs Assessment, Solicitor and Client Costs, 2 B Costs Scale
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jillian Rae Clegg
Plaintiff
Thomas William Clegg
Plaintiff
Shynelle Marie Houghton
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Application Under Property Law Act 2007 Ss 339(1),(4) and 343 / Costs Reserved After Substantive Judgment; Costs Judgment Delivered
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether plaintiffs should be awarded solicitor/client costs as previously ordered or costs on a 2B scale
- 2 Appropriate quantum of costs for a straightforward vacate-possession application
- 3 Whether absence of defendant submissions affects costs outcome
Ratio Decidendi
Given the straightforward nature of the application for vacant possession and the defendant's unmeritorious position and lack of submissions, the court exercised its discretion to award costs on the 2B scale rather than solicitor/client costs, awarding $7,996.50 to the plaintiffs.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to the plaintiffs on a 2B basis.
Orders
- Plaintiffs awarded costs on a 2B basis in the sum of $7,996.50.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CLEGG v HOUGHTON [2017] NZHC 2594 [24 October 2017]NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS)ACT 1976, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITHSS 11B TO 11D OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1980. FOR FURTHERINFORMATION, PLEASE SEEHTTP://WWW.JUSTICE.GOVT.NZ/FAMILY-JUSTICE/ABOUT-US/ABOUT-THE-FAMILY-COURT/LEGISLATION/RESTRICTION-ON-PUBLISHING-JUDGMENTS.IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDHAMILTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAKIRIKIRIROA ROHECIV-2016-419-98[2017] NZHC 2594IN THE MATTER of ss 339(1) and (4) and 343 Property LawAct 2007BETWEEN JILLIAN RAE CLEGG AND THOMASWILLIAM CLEGGPlaintiffsAND SHYNELLE MARIE HOUGHTONDefendantHearing: (On the papers)Counsel: C M Earl for PlaintiffsJudgment: 24 October 2017COSTS JUDGMENT OF BREWER JSolicitors:Jane Hunter (Thames) for Plaintiffs[1] In my judgment delivered in this matter,1 I reserved leave for the parties to filesubmissions on costs.[2] I have received submissions on behalf of the plaintiffs and nothing on behalfof the defendant.[3] The plaintiffs seek actual solicitor/client costs so as to be consistent with aprevious order to that effect made by Woolford J on 19 July 2016. Alternatively, costson a 2B basis are requested.[4] The case called before me was for an order to assist with the sale of a residentialproperty by granting vacant possession. It was entirely straightforward and I am notsure that, normally, 2B costs would be appropriate. However, given the hopelessposition of the (self-represented) defendant, there is a case for 2B costs, and I grant itin the sum of $7,996.50 as set out in the plaintiffs' submissions as to costs.________________________________Brewer J1 Clegg v Houghton [2017] NZHC 2067.